Re: git vs dfsg tarballs
- To: firstname.lastname@example.org
- Subject: Re: git vs dfsg tarballs
- From: "Enrico Weigelt, metux IT consult" <email@example.com>
- Date: Fri, 7 Dec 2018 12:48:28 +0100
- Message-id: <[🔎] firstname.lastname@example.org>
- In-reply-to: <CAKTje6FWH7L1DOqYczSJFAuX0ZtEx5+AAEAcFqFyPdZvK+UFNQ@mail.gmail.com>
- References: <email@example.com> <firstname.lastname@example.org> <20181120104942.GB9019@chew.redmars.org> <CAKTje6FWH7L1DOqYczSJFAuX0ZtEx5+AAEAcFqFyPdZvK+UFNQ@mail.gmail.com>
On 21.11.18 04:22, Paul Wise wrote:
> I don't think Andreas was talking about applying the DFSG but about
> files we don't have permission to distribute at all.
Have there been any cases where those files have been in the
upstream VCS ? I don't recall any such case.
For the case where certain parts shouldn't be built/shipped due to
policy, this can - and IMHO should - be handled with changes within
the VCS, instead of having tarballs laying around w/o any clear
history and no indication how exactly it was created from upstream.
Actually, since about a decade, I'm not doing any code changes outside
git, and I'm building packages only directly from git. Frankly, I don't
see any reason why that can't be the standard case.
Enrico Weigelt, metux IT consult
Free software and Linux embedded engineering
email@example.com -- +49-151-27565287