Re: git-buildpackage and tarballs
On 10/22/2011 07:41 PM, Charles Plessy wrote:
> Le Sat, Oct 22, 2011 at 01:29:57PM +0200, Jakub Wilk a écrit :
>
>> Just because some developers choose to abuse native source format,
>> doesn't mean it's something that should be advocated to newcomers.
>> So please stop. Thanks.
>>
> Apart from the point I raised about translations (for which I never read a
> complain from the translators themselves), what would be the problems ? Using
> a ‘native’ format when there is no upstream tarball looks very appropriate to
> me.
>
> Cheers,
>
If there's no upstream tarball, just create one.
Using the native format is *very* annoying for
derivative distributions, please don't do that
unless you *know* that there is *absolutely no
chance* that your package will migrate to a
derivative distribution like Ubuntu or others.
On 10/22/2011 09:59 PM, Charles Plessy wrote:
> This is excactly why I am limiting my recommendation to the case where there is
> no upstream release as tarball. In that sense, a new source package is still a
> downstream event that is not indicative of an upstream release.
>
This isn't the reason to choose a native format. See above.
> I am not sure that it is a situation that is to be avoided by newcomers.
> Newcomers tend to work on new software, and new software tends to be
> distributed on source hubs, increasingly without tarballs, instead of source
> forges with tarballs.
This isn't the reason to choose a native format. See above.
Thomas
Reply to: