On 25/10/2023 01:10, Paul Wise wrote:
On Tue, 2023-10-24 at 17:57 -0300, Eduardo M KALINOWSKI wrote:Isn't it a bit extreme to repack the source because of a file that is automatically generated, but is still distributable?Indeed, it isn't necessary to repack source to remove generated files. https://wiki.debian.org/AutoGeneratedFiles The best option is to send upstream a patch removing the file from their VCS and tarballs so that it is always built from source.
I am also the upstream. In the case of this file (kildclient.gresource.c) I agree that it can be removed from the upstream tarball. Even though an extra tool is required to generate the file, if someone that is building from source has the glib development package (which is a requirement), they're likely to have the necessary tool.
As I mentioned, the tarball also has automatically generated html files for the manual (and the xml source). Bastian did not raise an issue about these files, but those I think should not be removed from the upstream tarball, because rebuilding them requires a whole other set of tools (docbook and a xlst processor), and this seems like an unnecessary complication for an end user that is building from source.
But the packages files are ignored, and they're rebuilt from the source when the package is built.
All that being said, while the next version of the upstream tarball will probably not include the kildclient.gresource.c file, I'd rather not release an upstream version just for that. So for the moment, I intend to fix the packaging to rm this file so that it's regenerated from the sources. Would this be acceptable, Bastian?
(And when there's a new upstream release, I can remove this special treatment of the file.)
--It's lucky you're going so slowly, because you're going in the wrong direction.
Eduardo M KALINOWSKI eduardo@kalinowski.com.br