Bug#950198: restinio
Thanks Sébastien for your analysis.
On Mon, Apr 27, 2020 at 12:10:35PM +0200, Sébastien Delafond wrote:
> Before you go ahead on any of this, please let's wait for Alexandre's
> input.
I agree.
> I am unsure where your gut feeling comes from: the smaller package is OK
> to simply use as an include in a development project. OTOH when building
> the Debian package, we're definitely interested in running the
> upstream-provided unit tests during a regular build.
My gut feeling.. let me try and explain.
First of all, there is no technical requirement for release tarballs of
different sizes. The friction is most obvious in the copyright file.
But also distributing stuff that is packaged elsewhere is against the
packaging guidelines [1] in a similar context (repacking).
"""
6.7.8.2.2 [the package]
should not contain any file that does not come from the upstream
author(s).
"""
Then, I do not believe that source files "come from upstream" authors
just because they inadvertendly bundle third party work into some kind
of "convenience" tarball.
Beyond belief, the package (as I did it) is in fact based on the
upstream git repo, so this is where "upstream" comes from. And I am in
good society doing it that way [2].
"""
There is absolutely no technical reason to not use the upstream git
repository as the basis for the git repository used in Debian packaging.
I would never package software maintained in a git repository upstream
and not do so.
"""
I hope it is more clear now, how I prefer to use the small tarball over
running the tests, as a matter of principle. The tests can be added
later, once it will be practical, e.g. with a patch, and maybe some
other dependencies packaged.
regards
felix
[1] https://www.debian.org/doc/manuals/developers-reference/best-pkging-practices.html
[2] http://joeyh.name/blog/entry/upstream_git_repositories/
Reply to: