On 19.06.24 09:51, Simon Richter wrote:
it effectively changes what we consider a "source package"
Isn't that already the case? After all, as soon as a maintainer uses [d]git, the package's archived sources become write-only for all practical purposes.
One way forward could be * if required, we teach dgit whichever workflows are missing from it * most maintainers use dgit / tag2upload * we teach dak how to clone the package's git repository directly* non-dgit/t2u uploads get fed to dgit by incoming, which then synthesizes a t2u tag
* as a result dak no longer requires our source archive* we use compressed git exports to distribute our sources instead of tarballs and teach "apt-get source" to feed them to git.
git can produce shallow and/or incremental packed sources (see "man git-pack-objects"), thus this would also save archive space: no need for separate upstream-1.0 and upstream-1.0.1 source tarballs.
If those had been git-maintained packages, how would those have been archived?
An append-only git archive is not the same as a fast-forward-only git archive. Git is perfectly able to work with multiple unrelated source trees in the same repository.
-- -- mit freundlichen Grüßen -- -- Matthias Urlichs
Attachment:
OpenPGP_signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature