Re: git-buildpackage and tarballs
Charles Plessy <plessy@debian.org> writes:
> This is excactly why I am limiting my recommendation to the case where
> there is no upstream release as tarball. In that sense, a new source
> package is still a downstream event that is not indicative of an
> upstream release.
> I am not sure that it is a situation that is to be avoided by newcomers.
> Newcomers tend to work on new software, and new software tends to be
> distributed on source hubs, increasingly without tarballs, instead of
> source forges with tarballs.
The same issue as with a tarball applies, though: unless the intention is
to tag a new upstream release every single time a new version of the
Debian package is uploaded (or unless the upstream doesn't even tag
releases, but I would strongly recommend against that), the native format
isn't appropriate.
Basically, using the native format enforces release practices that are
mildly unfriendly to non-Debian consumers of the software. It means there
will be a new full upstream release even if the only changes are
Debian-specific packaging changes and hence of no interest to anyone else.
This isn't necessarily that big of a deal, but it's awkward, and once one
invests in the one-time tool configuration effort required to separate the
two release flows, generally unnecessary.
--
Russ Allbery (rra@debian.org) <http://www.eyrie.org/~eagle/>
Reply to: