Re: Standardizing the layout of git packaging repositories
On 08/19/2014 07:40 AM, Barry Warsaw wrote:
> As Debian developers, I think we generally shouldn't be dictating best
> practices to upstreams. Let them do whatever is most comfortable to them and
> let them concentrate on making good software!
I agree with that. But the same way, I don't think upstream should try
to dictate the way we use their source.
> Upstreams have a lot more
> concerns then how well their branches fit into Debian's packaging machinery.
> Sure, most upstreams are pretty Debian friendly, but they might have to worry
> about how releases get made for vastly different OSes (i.e. not even Linux) so
> Debian can be just a blip for them. I.e. nice if they can make our lives
> easier but don't count on it.
I don't count on it. :)
> For better or worse, the tarball is the abstracted medium of exchange between
> upstreams and downstreams, and it makes good sense to have that.
>
> (I'm not arguing against using an upstream git tag when it *does* all work
> nice and smoothly, just saying you can't count on it, and should force our
> workflows onto upstreams'.)
Good! For the moment, it has worked nicely, apart from the fact that
*some* upstream, like Jeremy Stanley, don't like it. I honestly feel
sorry about that, especially with people like Jeremy and other OpenStack
folks which are doing truly awesome work, and for which I have a lot of
respect.
And would like to let him understand the reasons that are pushing me to
work this way. I also feel like it's mostly a non-issue, for which
there's no reason to be that picky (just let go, Jeremy? :)).
BTW, some upstream are very cooperative, and started to add PGP tags,
and pay more attention to tags in general. Some just don't care. I've
seen a big mix of opinions.
Thomas
Reply to: