Subject: Source directory name

From: Michael Meskes <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 14 Aug 1996 14:12:10 +0200 (MET DST)

I just talked to Ian about the name of the source dir in our new source
format. Since we're changing the format anyway I think we should use the
same format for source and binaries. For instance I'd like to name the
modules source file modules_2.0.0-8.tar.gz, the binary
modules_2.0.0-8_i386.deb and the directory in which the source is stored IMO
should be modules_2.0.0.

Comments anyone?

Michael
-- 
Michael Meskes                   |    _____ ________ __  ____
[email-masked] |   / ___// ____/ // / / __ \___  __________
[email-masked]                  |   \__ \/ /_  / // /_/ /_/ / _ \/ ___/ ___/
[email-masked]                |  ___/ / __/ /__  __/\__, /  __/ /  (__  )
Use Debian Linux!                | /____/_/      /_/  /____/\___/_/  /____/

---

From: [email-masked]
Date: Wed, 14 Aug 96 11:57 EDT

Michael> I'd like to name the modules source file modules_2.0.0-8.tar.gz,
  Michael> the binary modules_2.0.0-8_i386.deb and the directory in which the
  Michael> source is stored IMO should be modules_2.0.0.

As the saying goes: You can't have the pie and eat it.

There are conflicting goals: either we want to make clear that upstream
sources are unaltered (which we agree is a good principle) and therefore name
a source file modules-2.0.tar.gz or we strive for consistency and name it
modules_2.0.0-8.tar.gz which looks as if we have altered the sources.

But I very much like the idea of renaming the directory. After all, it
contains pristine upstream material _plus_ our patches.

--
Dirk Eddelb"uttel                             http://qed.econ.queensu.ca/~edd

---

From: Steve Greenland <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 14 Aug 1996 13:01:48 -0500 (CDT)

> modules_2.0.0-8_i386.deb and the directory in which the source is stored IMO
Are you talking about the directory on the ftp sites (if there is such),
or the directory into which the source is unpacked? If the latter, then
it seems gratuitously different from the way the normal upstream source
would unpack, for no obvious benefit.

(I mean obvious to me. Maybe I'm missing something. I often do :-))

Steve Greenland

-- 
The Mole - I think, therefore I scream 

				"Hi.  I'm Luther.  Dumb ol' Luther -- the
				 happy sidekick.  The comedy relief.  And
				 I'm going to kill you."
[Luthor's cybernetic logic finally gives, in AMERICAN FLAGG!]

---

From: [email-masked]
Date: Wed, 14 Aug 1996 21:20:40 +0200 (MET DST)

> contains pristine upstream material _plus_ our patches.

This is not how I understand the upcoming source handling.  I think the
only diff made to the original sources is that they unpack in a proper named
directory.  The patches are applied later but aren't part of the sources
files distributed with debian which will be named like
hello_1.3.4.orig.tar.gz (IIMNM).

Erick