Hello, On Tue 22 Oct 2019 at 08:21PM -07, Russ Allbery wrote: > In looking this over, none of this precludes the source format 4.0 that > Bastian proposed, provided that there was some way to export that source > format easily and simply from point 4. Maybe it doesn't matter what's > published in the source repository if everyone who wants this workflow > uses some other service to interact with the Git repositories instead. If > this were available, I personally would stop using Debian source packages > entirely and forget that they even exist, and would only use the above > workflow. Source packages then become an internal implementation detail > of the archive that no one needs to care about unless they want to, or > unless they're maintaining the dgit import service. > > It feels inelegant to me to have multiple publication mechanisms and > multiple canonical formats and the ongoing cost of conversion from one to > the other, but maybe that's already a sunk cost and it's worth paying it > to avoid having tedious arguments? Those of us working on dgit used to talk about eliminating source packages. More recently, we've come to the conclusion that it is not helpful to think in those terms at all. Source packages are just too deeply embedded in all sorts of places, and there are edge cases, such as packages with large binaries which we wouldn't want to check into git. Instead, we're now thinking of the work in the terms that you used -- trying to it possible to interact with the archive using only gittish workflows and gittish ways of thinking. -- Sean Whitton
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature