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

Re: RFC: DEP-14: Recommended layout for Git packaging repositories

On Nov 12, 2014, at 09:27 AM, Matthias Urlichs wrote:

>Then we should either remove the paragraph entirely, or at least mention
>the danger of bit rot and that it's unwise to rely on being able to recover
>the tarfile (long term).

Because the vast majority of upstream Python packages are released as tarballs
on PyPI, I have recommended that we continue to use pristine-tar for
debian-python packages maintained in git, even with the oft-mentioned problems
with pristine-tar.  (Which FWIW, I have never seen *in practice*, though I
know others have.)

Other team members don't want to use pristine-tar for various reasons, and I
think it makes less sense if upstream doesn't release on PyPI.

>Jonathan Dowland:
>> On Wed, Nov 12, 2014 at 03:38:59PM +0800, Paul Wise wrote:
>> > Personally I wouldn't use anything other than debian-only repos, at
>> > least for those where I have a choice. I also actively avoid
>> > contributing to packages that don't use such repos.
>> And I'm the exact opposite.
>FWIW: Me too. Debian-only is, to me, quite annoying, and a remnant of a
>workflow that was once a necessity (with CVS/SVN). Not so with git.

+1.  On Ubuntu, we had sourceful branches with UDD (bzr-based Ubuntu
Distributed Development).  It always seemed more awkward to use debian-only
branches in debian-python svn branches.  Playing with sourceful e.g. git-dpm
is a joy.


Attachment: signature.asc
Description: PGP signature

Reply to: