[Pkg-ime-devel] [RFS] skim package
minghua at rice.edu
Mon Aug 8 22:10:03 UTC 2005
> Ming Hua wrote:
> > Thanks for the work on skim packaging. I've just had a brief look on
> > your packages (didn't try to build it), and I have a few comments:
> > 1. How did you generated skim_1.2.3.orig.tar.gz? I know that upstream
> > only releases bzipped tarballes, but I uncompressed your tarball and the
> > one from upstream, they don't match:
> > 3b051e68bb4fa032f0a08de4683ff6fa skim-1.2.3.tar
> > 96554f5aee54c67598d5c93484079a66 skim_1.2.3.orig.tar
> > It's usually desirable to use the upstream tarballs as much as possible.
On Mon, Aug 08, 2005 at 09:23:38PM +0800, William J Beksi wrote:
> I'm using the upstream bzipped tarball, however it seems dh_make does
> not like the "bz2" extension, I get the following error message from
> "Source file is a bz2 but bzip2 or gzip not available at
> /usr/bin/dh_make line 409, <STDIN> line 2."
This is a bug in dh-make, see #314875.
> That is why I renamed the extension, maybe I should ask upstream to
> rename the extension to "bzip2"?
No, .bz2 is the standard bzip2 format suffix as far as I know. Changing
it to bzip2 won't fix your problem anyway. I'm fine with your changing
the compression format, I was wondering if you changed the content of
the _uncompressed tarball_. Read my comments above carefully, I was
comparing the uncompressed upstream tarball (was bzipped) and your
source tarball (was gzipped), and they don't match. If I am going to
change the compression format, I'll still use the upstream tarball,
which means just bunzip2 the .tar.bz2 from upstream (to .tar), then gzip
it (to .tar.gz), and rename/symlink to .orig.tar.gz. You are apparently
doing something different, my question then, is exactly how did you
change the compression format? I'm not saying you should follow my
approach, but I feel you need to give some explanation.
(P.S.: I'm subscribed to pkg-ime-devel list, it's not necessary to send
copies to me, thanks.)
More information about the Pkg-ime-devel