Web lists-archives.com

Re: Survey: git packaging practices / repository format

On Wed, 2019-05-29 at 00:39 +0100, Simon McVittie wrote:
> My understanding is that this unusual difference between the .orig
> tarball and what's in git is an attempt to "square the circle" between
> two colliding design principles: "the .orig tarball should be upstream's
> official binary artifact" (in this case Automake `make dist` output,
> including generated files like Makefile.in but not non-critical source
> files like .gitignore) and "what's in git should match upstream's git
> repository" (including .gitignore but
> not usually Makefile.in).

Perhaps we should update policy to say that the .orig tarball may (or
even "should") be generated from an upstream release tag where


Ben Hutchings
Horngren's Observation:
              Among economists, the real world is often a special case.

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part