Bug#792096: borg packaging
Hi Danny,
On Thu, Sep 17, 2015 at 01:12:11PM +0200, Danny Edel wrote:
> I was surprised to see the reaction my comments generated and like
> Gianfranco, I also want to ask Marc to consider rethinking his decision.
> I do not think you are spoiling the fun or that insisting on
> oldfashioned keeping is a bad thing. I apologize that my choice of
> words made you feel that way - I am not a native english speaker either,
> so it may have sounded different than I intended.
It was not your choice of words that made me decide to pull out. I
just tend to not spend time on work that others can do faster and
better. It is not that I am dying of boredom while not working on
borgbackup ;-)
> I chose github as a mirror because I have upload rights there, that's
> the only reason. I would also prefer to work on *.debian.org and I will
> do so once I have permission. I just thought hosting git repo online
> somewhere makes looking at it easier than sending stuff by mail, and
> using github seemed like the easier choice than hosting and maintaining
> a git browser myself. Since git clones contain the entire history,
> switching mirrors shouldn't be complicated once upload permission is
> granted.
You're fully right.
> I chose the "ignore upstream tarball/use git tag" method also just
> because it was simpler. Had I imported the release tarball, I would
> have had to maintain the list of files that are auto-generated (a simple
> *.c won't do, for example _chunker.c is handwritten), and add rules to
> remove them from the build dir or change their timestamp so that they
> get refreshed at build-time.
I understand. Doing such kind of cleanup in debian/rules is just fine.
And yes, a list of files needs to be maintained. I am not sure whether
the "use git tag" strategy will interfere with Debian's current goal
of reproducible builds.
If you stay with the strategy, please document this. I think there is
a debian/README.source standardized file for such things.
> Not having them in the first place made that unnecessary. That's
> the reason why upstream git tag seemed easier to create a working
> example implementation of the "regenerate files" idea.
>
> The git tag is gpg-signed with the same key as the tar.gz release, so I
> don't really see the difference in authenticity
You're right.
> Or am I getting this wrong?
Not at all.
You do the work, you decide. I might have another opinion, but that's
just an opinion that you're free to ignore.
Greetings
Marc
--
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Marc Haber | "I don't trust Computers. They | Mailadresse im Header
Leimen, Germany | lose things." Winona Ryder | Fon: *49 6224 1600402
Nordisch by Nature | How to make an American Quilt | Fax: *49 6224 1600421
Reply to: