Re: Comments on deb-pkg patch series

[Frans Pop <elendil@planet.nl>]

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.