Re: [Python-modules-team] python-xlib_0.26-1_source.changes ACCEPTED into unstable
On Wed, 22 Apr 2020 at 23:44, Sandro Tosi <morph@debian.org> wrote:
> Andrej,
> can you please clarify why you're keep using pristine-lfs even when
> prompted not to? this is just from 2 packages uploaded in the last
> hour (ftr, pyopenssl is broken now..)
Sandro, wasn’t it all about pristine-tar missing? You (and others) use
pristine-tar, you need pristine-tar data. I don’t like it and don’t
use it, but okay, I don’t want you to get annoyed by the inability to
follow your workflow, I try and use pristine-tar every time. But
what’s wrong with also publishing a pristine-lfs branch? It doesn’t
prevent you in any way from doing things the way you were doing
before.
I will look at what happened with pyopenssl.
> https://salsa.debian.org/python-team/modules/pyopenssl/-/tree/pristine-lfs
> https://salsa.debian.org/python-team/modules/urwid/-/tree/pristine-lfs
> On Sat, Mar 21, 2020 at 3:31 PM Scott Kitterman <debian@kitterman.com> wrote:
> > The way to get the policy changed is not to ignore it and then get aggressive
> > when called on it.
Scott, I didn’t get aggressive, or, at least, it was not my intention.
I’m sorry if it came across as such. I genuinely believe that
pristine-tar should be gradually moved away from to something better,
as I had a misfortune to work with it on a large scale (hundreds of
packages) and I know how unreliable it sometimes is. Not only it
routinely generated tarballs with different checksums, it sometimes
failed to generate anything at all. I developed pristine-lfs as a
proper tool with the UI compatible with pristine-tar (instead of just
a custom script) specifically to help others use it without changing
workflows much.
--
Cheers,
Andrej
Reply to: