flac dev - Sep 2004 - Inclusion of debian packaging info (was Re: libFLAC docs)

>This question comes up regularly on the Debian mailing lists, and there are
>arguments for both approaches.  I am against the practice of including a
>debian/ directory in upstream source distributions for the following
>reasons:
>- For the same reason, the Debian maintainer would have to have write access
to
>  the upstream CVS repository.  This is often otherwise unnecessary or
>  undesirable.
why? isn't it possible to only give write access to the debian/
directory?
>- Debian source packages essentially consist of a copy of the upstream
source
>  tarball (intact, when possible, so that signature verification and the
like
>  can be performed) and a compressed diff which includes any debian-specific
>  changes.  This makes it easy for the user to recognize what changes were
made
>  to the source code for the Debian package, and allows the user to
selectively
>  add or omit such changes.
it's hard enough for the average user to find out how to compile source
packages and checkout from CVS. The Ogg sources also includes a debian/
dir and it was much easier to build deb packages from this.

> >- Debian source packages essentially consist of a copy of the
> upstream source
> >  tarball (intact, when possible, so that signature verification and
> the like
> >  can be performed) and a compressed diff which includes any
> debian-specific
> >  changes.  This makes it easy for the user to recognize what
> changes were made
> >  to the source code for the Debian package, and allows the user to
> selectively
> >  add or omit such changes.
> 
> it's hard enough for the average user to find out how to compile
> source
> packages and checkout from CVS. The Ogg sources also includes a
> debian/
> dir and it was much easier to build deb packages from this. 
Actually I am kind of leaning toward the scenario Matt is
describing.  It seems to me that once 1.0 is out somebody
will take on the job of maintaining packages for different
distros.  These things will get scattered around enough so
that it shouldn't be a problem finding the latest release
in package form.

If you are building periodically from CVS then it seems like
extra work to make a package out of it just to install.
Whenever I do such a thing with someone else's proggie
I usually just configure --prefix=/some/temp/place && make &&
make install and just run out of there.  I guess it's
slightly more complicated with flac because of the plugin
but not too bad.

Josh


__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Spot the hottest trends in music, movies, and more.
http://buzz.yahoo.com/

On Fri, Jun 15, 2001 at 11:33:15AM -0700, Josh Coalson wrote:
> > it's hard enough for the average user to find out how to compile
> > source
> > packages and checkout from CVS. The Ogg sources also includes a
> > debian/
> > dir and it was much easier to build deb packages from this. 
	Sorry, I'm just coming in in the middle of this, but I second
	any motion to include a debian/ dirextory directory in the
	flac sources.

	In general the build scripts and control files in a debian/
	directory are pretty static and don't change from version to
	version, with the exception of the changelog.  To include them
	in an application's source generally involves very little
	overhead and maintenance.
> If you are building periodically from CVS then it seems like extra
> work to make a package out of it just to install.  Whenever I do
> such a thing with someone else's proggie I usually just configure
> --prefix=/some/temp/place && make && make install and just
run out
> of there.  I guess it's slightly more complicated with flac because
> of the plugin but not too bad.
	For those of us who use debian, the idea of installing
	something not in packaged form is almost blasphemy :)

-- 
cae at bklyn dot org | Caleb Epstein | bklyn . org | Brooklyn Dust Bunny Mfg.