Re: Consensus Call: Git Packaging Round 1 [and 1 more messages]
On Tue, Aug 27, 2019 at 11:40:22AM +0100, Ian Jackson wrote:
> Andrej Shadura writes ("Re: Consensus Call: Git Packaging Round 1"):
> > I noticed some people [citation needed] think it is not important to
> > preserve pristine upstream tarballs with the move to Git, and it's
> > okay to regenerate them from a Git branch without trying to preserve
> > checksums of the tarballs upstream has somehow generated.
>
> I am one of these people. I have always been sceptical of the need to
> preserve upstream pristine tarballs.
I just wanted to leave a note to the effect that I have some cases where
I think this remains useful. In deference to Sam's organisation of the
discussion I'll refrain from getting into them just now.
> I haven't been vocal about this because no-one is forcing anyone to
> publish pristine tarballs. So in any situation where the maintainer
> doesn't want to pay the costs of preserving pristine upstream
> tarballs, the maintainer can simply not do so.
>
> That overall stance has a lot of social value for the project, because
> it means we can all cooperate without having to have this debate. We
> can save our energy for doing something more useful.
I definitely agree with this position.
--
Colin Watson [cjwatson@debian.org]
Reply to: