[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: tarball in tarball: opinions

On Sat, Jul 05, 2008 at 08:17:21PM +0200, Bernhard R. Link wrote:
> * Jay Berkenbilt <qjb@debian.org> [080705 18:22]:
> >  * I like to have an exact copy of the downloaded source tarball with
> >    the same md5 checksum, gpg detached signature, etc.  Using the
> >    rules/tarball.mk from cdbs provides a very convenient way of
> >    handling this.
> I consider this the main reason I personally consider tarball in tarball
> bad: The .orig.tar.gz is totally different to the upstream tarball.
> If upstream already has a .tar.gz then there is no excuse in my eyes
> and even with .tar.bz2 it's easier to download this, check it, unpack
> both and compare some checksums, than to first look into the file if it
> is the same, then detecting it is not supposed to be the upstream file,
> unpack it, look how the file is named in there and then comparing those.

All the 3.0 formats allow bzip2 tarballs so that will no longer be a
reason to do this.  3.0 (quilt) also allows multiple upstream tarballs
which used to be a good reason for using tarball-in-tarball.


Ben Hutchings
Design a system any fool can use, and only a fool will want to use it.

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Reply to: