Re: policy regarding redistributable binary files in upstream tarballs

[Ben Finney <ben+debian@benfinney.id.au>]

Paul Wise <pabs@debian.org> writes:

> I think the best solution is to send upstream some patches that remove
> the files in question from the VCS and add commands to their build
> system to build the files in question from their source.

In my experience, many upstreams have an aversion to an explicit build
step, because they see VCS as not only a VCS, but also as an end-user
distribution platform.

So they actively resist the concept that the VCS should contain the
source only, because they want end-users to have the files needed to
drop in place and go — without introducing a post-download build
process.

Couple this with the widespread practice of bundling third-party
libraries into one's source tree, but taking no responsibility for their
provenance or maintenance, and you have a recipe for a painful job for
Debian package maintainers.

The needs of system integrators like the Debian project, who need to
have “get the full corresponding source” distinct from “deploy for
run-time”, are foreign to this way of working. I'm meeting more and more
resistance from upstreams to ensuring a clean source tree, because of
this.

In cases where the upstream doesn't have this desire for users to deploy
directly from VCS with no build step, it can be easier to convince them
to remove non-source forms. But that is less often the case, as “just
clone this repo and run” becomes the deployment method of choice.

-- 
 \           “Value your freedom or you will lose it, teaches history. |
  `\     “Don't bother us with politics,” respond those who don't want |
_o__)                            to learn.” —Richard M. Stallman, 2002 |
Ben Finney