>>>>> "Andrey" == Andrey Rahmatullin <w...@debian.org> writes:
Andrey> On Wed, May 29, 2019 at 02:14:09PM +0100, Ben Hutchings wrote:
>> [...] > My understanding is that this unusual difference between
>> the .orig > tarball and what's in git is an attempt to "square
>> the circle" between > two colliding design principles: "the .orig
>> tarball should be upstream's > official binary artifact" (in this
>> case Automake `make dist` output, > including generated files
>> like Makefile.in but not non-critical source > files like
>> .gitignore) and "what's in git should match upstream's git >
>> repository" (including .gitignore but > not usually Makefile.in).
>> [...]
>>
>> Perhaps we should update policy to say that the .orig tarball may
>> (or even "should") be generated from an upstream release tag
>> where applicable.
Andrey> This conflicts with shipping tarball signatures.
Sure does.
I can see the argument for caring about that if you're dealing with an
upstream that does run make dist and publish official signed tarballs.
There are a lot of upstreams though where the tarball is an afterthought
or entirely not present.
I hope we as a community can decide to go with the git rather than
pressuring such upstreams to care more about tarballs.
--Sam
