Re: Standardizing the layout of git packaging repositories
On August 19, 2014 8:08:14 PM EDT, Jeremy Stanley <fungi@yuggoth.org> wrote:
>On 2014-08-20 02:32:10 +0800 (+0800), Thomas Goirand wrote:
>[...]
>> 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? :)).
>[...]
>
>Fair enough! I will admit (having been a devoted Debian user in
>personal and large commercial settings for the past 15+ years but
>only an occasional packager) that I'm very impressed at how you keep
>up with the extreme volume of packaging you do day to day, and
>ultimately feel however you manage to maximize your efficiency is
>best for everyone. My main upstream takeaway from this is that we
>should perhaps be considering tarballs as a target-specific
>packaging format (PyPI et al) in and of themselves any longer,
>rather than a general release item and stop placing as much focus on
>them in release announcements if packagers are mostly just consuming
>source directly from our version control systems now.
>
>Thanks for considering my (apparently outdated) arguments, and keep
>up the good work!
Don't assume most packagers approach thing like Thomas. I certainly don't. I've no idea what most do, but I don't think the predominant voices in this thread are generally representative.
Scott K
Reply to: