The debian-private mailing list leak, part 1. Volunteers have complained about Blackmail. Lynchings. Character assassination. Defamation. Cyberbullying. Volunteers who gave many years of their lives are picked out at random for cruel social experiments. The former DPL's girlfriend Molly de Blanc is given volunteers to experiment on for her crazy talks. These volunteers never consented to be used like lab rats. We don't either. debian-private can no longer be a safe space for the cabal. Let these monsters have nowhere to hide. Volunteers are not disposable. We stand with the victims.
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: Changing the way we deal with source archives

On Fri, 07 Mar 1997 20:50:00 PST Bruce Perens (bruce@pixar.com) wrote:

> > Additionnaly, I have a couple of packages where some stuff from the original
> > file has been deleted (because it's not built for Debian). It's only
> > esoteric features. The deletion of a part of the source tree is documented
> > in the README.debian.
> 
> I would suggest you do the deletion in such a way that the .diff.gz file
> calls out the fact that files have been deleted rather than delete them
> from the upstream source and then upload a modified version of the upstream
> source. Changing the upstream source that way feels gratituitous to me,
> perhaps this is something I'm too prissy about, but I'd like to preserve
> trace-ability of any modifications that Debian people made to a package.

The purpose of deletion of to make the source smaller.
An other example: xv comes with all the libraries it needs to be built (including libjpeg, libtiff, and others). These libraries are already compiled for debian, and the sources are already in the debian source tree. Leaving the libraries in the .tar.gz more than doubles the already large 1.2Megs.

Ad for traceability, why not allowing developpers which make such changes to stamp the source as the original developper would do ? (assuming it does, which I doubt (maybe a little pessimistic on this)).
The trace of the source would be from the developper to maintainer to user...
Is this stupid ?
I don't really understand all this recent paranoia, and what's behind what you call traceability...

Phil.