Path: csiph.com!news.redatomik.org!aioe.org!bofh.it!news.nic.it!robomod
From: Ghislain Vaillant <ghisvail@gmail.com>
Newsgroups: linux.debian.maint.python
Subject: Re: a few quick questions on gbp pq workflow
Date: Sun, 06 Aug 2017 21:10:01 +0200
Message-ID: <ubz61-6bR-9@gated-at.bofh.it>
References: <ubvc6-3xe-7@gated-at.bofh.it> <ubwhP-4rV-7@gated-at.bofh.it> <ubwBc-4yy-21@gated-at.bofh.it> <ubytk-5JT-25@gated-at.bofh.it> <ubyWl-5Tz-17@gated-at.bofh.it>
Old-Return-Path: <ghisvail@gmail.com>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:52.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/52.2.1
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252; format=flowed
Content-Language: en-GB
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Approved: robomod@news.nic.it
Lines: 18
Organization: linux.* mail to news gateway
Sender: robomod@news.nic.it
Xref: csiph.com linux.debian.maint.python:9710

On 06/08/17 19:53, Jeremy Stanley wrote:
> Why would you need to repack a tarball just because it contains
> prebuilt docs (non-DFSG-free licensed documentation aside)? I'm all
> for rebuilding those at deb build time just to be sure you have the
> right deps packaged too, but if the ones in the tarball are built
> from DFSG-compliant upstream source, included in the archive for
> that matter, then leaving the tarball pristine shouldn't be a policy
> violation, right? That's like repacking a tarball for an
> autotools-using project because upstream is shipping a configure
> script built from an included configure.in file.

You'd still have to clean the pre-built files, since they would be 
overwritten by the build system and therefore dpkg-buildpackage would 
complain if you run the build twice.

So, you might as well just exclude them from the source straight away, no?

Ghis