Re: Do we still need pristine-tar?
Hi Andrius,
Am Fri, Sep 12, 2025 at 02:25:16PM +0300 schrieb Andrius Merkys:
> On 2025-09-12 08:16, Charles Plessy wrote:
> > since we are anyway losing byte-to-byte identity with upstream tarballs, would
> > there be any drawback in converting the multi-orig packages to standard
> > single-orig ones?
>
> I might have missed something, but why we are losing the byte-to-byte
> identity?
If you tar up some directory its not granted that if some other user is
doing the same at some different time the tarball is byte identical.
Only after unpackaging the two tarballs the unpackaged trees are byte
identical again. Storing the pristine-tar information solves this
problem (to 99,99% - there are always people who say its not working but
was never the case for me).
I've read the discussion with interest and I admit I feel better when
having some orig.tar.gz that is identical with what can be found
upstream and in the vast majority of cases we do not do any repackaging.
Its hard to accomplish this if more than one developer is contributing
to the packaging of the new upstream version when not using
pristine-tar. I'm happy to see tag2upload to gain traktion. However,
loosing pristine-tar features just because tag2upload does not support
it seems unfortunate to me.
Kind regards
Andreas.
--
https://fam-tille.de
Reply to: