Re: git as a source package format?
Charles Plessy wrote:
> It would be definitely a big undertaking, but the point
> I want to make is that one can not say that Git repositories could not
> be redistributed by Debian and at the same time be satisfied with the
> way we handle our packages currently. (And to make things clear: I think
> that we should redistribute Git packages, especially when they are
> obviously the "preferred source for modification" upstream).
I would agree if you were talking about files distributed from my own
home server. But you are not.
You are talking about files the project asks Debian mirrors to host,
without providing much support to help the mirror admins in case of
legal trouble. Most problems that could create liability for an admin
(or CD distributor, web host, downstream operating system vendor, ...)
tend to be caught and addressed early. I would not be confident
enough to make the same claim for every commit in every package's
upstream history. That's too much code for it to be easy to believe
any DD has combed through it all.
So I can't agree that distributing full upstream history in the same
way as source packages are distributed now is a good idea.
By contrast, I see nothing wrong with
- mirroring upstream history
- making generation of flattened source packages from a version
control checkout even easier
- making getting a full version control checkout from an unpacked
source package easier
- helping admins who accept the risk to mirror anonscm.debian.org
Hoping that clarifies,