Web lists-archives.com

Re: Survey: git packaging practices / repository format




On Wed, May 29, 2019 at 02:14:09PM +0100, Ben Hutchings 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
> applicable.
This conflicts with shipping tarball signatures.

-- 
WBR, wRAR

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: PGP signature