From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from Cpsmtpm-eml110.kpnxchange.com ([195.121.3.14]:55580 "EHLO CPSMTPM-EML110.kpnxchange.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1757419AbZDATLO (ORCPT ); Wed, 1 Apr 2009 15:11:14 -0400 From: Frans Pop Subject: Re: Comments on deb-pkg patch series Date: Wed, 1 Apr 2009 21:11:09 +0200 References: <20090401162320.GY3901@baikonur.stro.at> <200904012035.58852.elendil@planet.nl> <20090401184755.GC3901@baikonur.stro.at> In-Reply-To: <20090401184755.GC3901@baikonur.stro.at> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline Message-Id: <200904012111.11664.elendil@planet.nl> Sender: linux-kbuild-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: To: maximilian attems Cc: linux-kbuild@vger.kernel.org, Andres Salomon , tytso@mit.edu, sam@ravnborg.org This is going to be my last post about this as we're in danger of repeating ourselves. IMO the arguments are now clear; others will have to make the decision here. On Wednesday 01 April 2009, maximilian attems wrote: > please get your linux-2.6 debianism out of your head. yes most of > the time make deb-pkg will be used by an upstream tarball or git tree. > it will certainly *not* be build by the "source" package linux. > so that is certainly wrong. Right. But IMO listing a non-existent source package is actually *better* because a .deb built using deb-pkg per definition does not _have_ a source package. > i repeat my argument that you have to go for the general case of > linux-2.6, so it will be correct in many cases instead of beeing > always incorrect. linux-2.6 is not the general case, it is an exception. The general case is building from some upstream git branch. (Unless you mean the linux-2.6 git tree, but that is totally irrelevant as it's not a source _package_.) The fact that the package refers to a non-existant source package has an informational value in itself and because there *is* no source package, it is perfectly correct. It would be better to not list a source package at all, but that's impossible due to technical requirements. As mentioned before, IMO "Source: linux-upstream" would be a better choice.