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. -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kbuild" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
