Re: Do we still need pristine-tar?
On 17/09/25 1:23 am, Andreas Tille wrote:
> 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.
I heard from Andrea (in person at Debconf) that they intend to work on
pristine-tar support for t2u. So I'd suggest to wait a little bit.
Technically, t2u is still in Beta. There's also #1106071 filed for supporting
pristine-tar. I'd suggest to wait a little bit before we change our workflows.
I am hopeful that support eventually will be added.
Reply to: