Hello Hilmar, Preuße, Hilmar <hille42@web.de> writes: > On 04.07.2023 15:42, Nicholas D Steeves wrote: > >>> texlive-bin (2023.20230311.66589-1) experimental; urgency=medium >>> . >>> * New upstream snapshot made for TL 2023. >>> - Remove sources of dvisvgm from orig.tar.xz, we don't build >>> it anyways. >> >> Thus shouldn't the upstream_version have a suffix like +dfsg, +ds (for >> "Debian Source"), or +repack, as appropriate, depending on the reason >> dvisvgm is excluded? >> > I can add it, if it is needed. This is ultimately up to your sponsor, but I think it's needed. It's also friendlier to upstream, because it's possible that a bug exists when using Debian-package-provided deps rather than texlive-bin-bundled deps (or vice versa). The repack suffix makes it clear to upstream that their source was modified. > The original tar ball contains a lots of source code, which exists as > separate package in Debian. Hence I decided to remove the source code to > get a smaller tar ball: > > # packaged separately: > rm -rf $verstr/texk/dvisvgm > rm -rf $verstr/utils/biber > rm -rf $verstr/utils/asymptote > rm -rf $verstr/utils/xindy > rm -rf $verstr/utils/ps2eps > rm -rf $verstr/utils/t1utils > > The split off was done years ago, just this time I decided to remove the > (duplicate) code. Thank you, you have the right idea, and this action is appreciated! :) Assuming all of those deps are in Debian main, it sounds like the "+ds" suffix would be the most appropriate. Regards, Nicholas
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature