Re: Survey: git packaging practices / repository format

[Sam Hartman <hartmans@debian.org>]

>>>>> "Andrey" == Andrey Rahmatullin <wrar@debian.org> writes:

    Andrey> On Wed, May 29, 2019 at 02:14:09PM +0100, Ben Hutchings wrote:
    >> [...]  > My understanding is that this unusual difference between
    >> the .orig > tarball and what's in git is an attempt to "square
    >> the circle" between > two colliding design principles: "the .orig
    >> tarball should be upstream's > official binary artifact" (in this
    >> case Automake `make dist` output, > including generated files
    >> like Makefile.in but not non-critical source > files like
    >> .gitignore) and "what's in git should match upstream's git >
    >> repository" (including .gitignore but > not usually Makefile.in).
    >> [...]
    >> 
    >> Perhaps we should update policy to say that the .orig tarball may
    >> (or even "should") be generated from an upstream release tag
    >> where applicable.
    Andrey> This conflicts with shipping tarball signatures.

Sure does.

I can see the argument for caring about that if you're dealing with an
upstream that does run make dist and publish official signed tarballs.

There are a lot of upstreams though where the tarball is an afterthought
or entirely not present.
I hope we as a community can decide to go with the git rather than
pressuring such upstreams to care more about tarballs.

--Sam