Re: What is the source code (was: [RFC] General Resolution to deploy tag2upload)
On Thu, 20 Jun 2024 at 13:19, Ian Jackson
<ijackson@chiark.greenend.org.uk> wrote:
>
> Aigars Mahinovs writes ("Re: What is the source code (was: [RFC] General Resolution to deploy tag2upload)"):
> > On Wed, 19 Jun 2024 at 12:57, Gerardo Ballabio
> > <gerardo.ballabio@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > 1) is the source of a package the current version of the code? [*]
> > > 2) is the source of a package the complete history of the project? [**]
> >
> > That is a very different set of questions and that is based on a
> > false premise.
>
> I think you're talking somewhat at cross purposes with Gerardo and
> Paul. This subthread is about a wider, more philosophical question:
> is the git history, in the general case, a necessary part of "the
> source code".
I was more objecting to the conflation of "necessary" and "desirable"
in the context of
"all history" and "just the latest history".
I think it is desirable to have as much of a historical view as
possible on the source
code and its development. Even to the point of upstream switching
being represented
in the historical view as overwriting merges from a different branch.
Is it, strictly speaking, *necessary* for the purposes of source code
distribution, preservation
and enabling of derived works? I don't think so. a shallow clone with
just enough history
to be able to reproduce the source package build is what would be the
minimum necessity to
publish such source code. And in certain cases (like epoch changes or
history being
contaminated by non-redistributable files) the source distribution can
be rolled back to this bare
minimum to preserve technical sanity.
> > It has nothing to do with history. Unless you want to do deep dives
> > and do git blame research. Something that is not possible with
> > Debian source code packages beyond the uploader/maintainer/developer
> > boundary.
>
> History diving is an important part of the maintenance and development
> of much software, nowadays. Which is why I'm in your "unless":
>
> I think the git history is often an essential part of the source code.
> And yes, that means, that for many packages, I think what is published
> in the Debian archive as the "source code" is *not* the source code.
> It's an intermediate build product.
I do agree with that sentiment. Just did not want to push it as
forcefully as to state that
as a requirement which would then bring up heavy technical and
possibly legal issues with it.
--
Best regards,
Aigars Mahinovs mailto:aigarius@debian.org
#--------------------------------------------------------------#
| .''`. Debian GNU/Linux (http://www.debian.org) |
| : :' : Latvian Open Source Assoc. (http://www.laka.lv) |
| `. `' Linux Administration and Free Software Consulting |
| `- (http://www.aiteki.com) |
#--------------------------------------------------------------#
Reply to: