Re: Git packaging workflow discussion on planet.d.o
On 04/05/2013 12:38 AM, Russ Allbery wrote:
> Jean-Christophe Dubacq <email@example.com> writes:
>> Yesterday, however, I just had the case of a project with no tarballs
>> (as the library I wanted to package is part of a larger project, it's
>> not released independently). I stumbled (too long) on having a good
>> workflow for this (I ended up tagging myself the upstream tree).
> Using git archive to generate a tarball from upstream is something that I
> do in some cases as well. It all depends on upstream's release process.
> I default to using released tarballs if they exist and are useful, but I
> fall back to git archive when they're not.
Opposite way for me. If there are (signed) tags, I use them first.
Upstream tarballs are most of the time compressed with gzip,
which is lame. They aren't PGP signed like a git tag may be.
Plus why should I bother downloading a tarball when I already
have the upstream code stored on my HDD?
> This means that the tarball Debian uses doesn't match
> upstream, which is a drawback
Why? I think that we're hitting the fetishism that Joey was talking
about in his blog post ... ;)
(please don't take the above "fetishism" word too seriously, I'm