Re: [RFC] General Resolution to deploy tag2upload
Ansgar 🙀 writes ("Re: [RFC] General Resolution to deploy tag2upload"):
> If we are talking about hypothetical ways upstream might nudge you
> into:
No, that's not what Phil's talking about.
Phil's talking about, for example, Russ's git-debrebase workflow,
where the git is treesame to the source package *until Russ needs to
diverge from upstream*.
No sensible maintainer is going to adopt a workflow that falls apart
the first time you want to carry a patch.
There are other more subtle issues that might arise, depending on
workflow, upstream practices, etc. etc. One of the things that we
tag2upload proponents seem to be having difficulty getting across is
just how complicated and diverse our existing workflows in Debian are.
It's easy to imagine that everyone is doing roughly the same as you.
But, they *really* aren't.
But ...
> there is a large territory that requires arbitrary code execution
> as build time (say to instatiate d/control from a template) which
> neither proposal for tag2upload allows.
There is no reason in principle why tag2upload couldn't support
templating of d/control, provided that the templating doesn't involve
executing arbitrary code and doesn't involve giant globs of
language-specific processing. We'd want to define a templating
arrangement that would be useable by multiple of the monorepo-based
packaging teams. IHNI if that is feasible or not but it doesn't seem
inherently impossible.
This is an example of the kind of advancement that is enabled, at
least theoretically, by centralising and standardising the building of
source packages.
(Currently, for those team monorepos, what's in the Debian archive
*definitely* isn't the source code, IMO. It's the output of a
mysterous transformation which takes as one of its inputs a git tree
that - if you're lucky - is somewhere on salsa.)
Ian.
--
Ian Jackson <ijackson@chiark.greenend.org.uk> These opinions are my own.
Pronouns: they/he. If I emailed you from @fyvzl.net or @evade.org.uk,
that is a private address which bypasses my fierce spamfilter.
Reply to: