On Thu, 20 Jan 2011 11:39:26 +0100, Stefano Zacchiroli wrote: > On Mon, Jan 17, 2011 at 08:24:25PM +0100, gregor herrmann wrote: > > And we have them for this reason; or put otherwise, we'd like to get > > rid of them which requires at least one of two things: [..] > > I don't mind deprecating bundles with tarballs but just recommending > > against them is not enough to make them go away :) > That is of course a very good point. However, even this argument seems > to be orthogonal to my proposal, in the following sense. *If* ftpmaster > disallow too small packages, you need a technical way to coalesce > several small upstream tarballs into a single Debian source > package. That is something which you can do with source formats 3.0, so > you would have a way to adhere to a SHOULD requirement against > tar-in-tar. What am I missing here? Nothing technically; maybe you overlooked my implicit point that replacing a huge PITA (tar-in-tar plus home-grown building scripts) with a lesser PITA (unpacked tarballs plus an evolving build system that still won't overcome the fundamental problems of bundles) doesn't look like a huge benefit to me :) Cheers, gregor -- .''`. http://info.comodo.priv.at/ -- GPG key IDs: 0x8649AA06, 0x00F3CFE4 : :' : Debian GNU/Linux user, admin, & developer - http://www.debian.org/ `. `' Member of VIBE!AT & SPI, fellow of Free Software Foundation Europe `- NP: Sting: If You Love Somebody Set Them
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature