Ian Jackson <ijack...@chiark.greenend.org.uk> writes: > Of course this means that the resulting source packages are not the "3.0 > (quilt)" patch queue source packages that many people (even some people > who like git) say is important to them.
> A key design goal for dgit and my tag2upload proposal, is that (when > used in the most usual way) it produces nice source packages like > everyone is used to. My recollection is that you found 3.0 (quilt) packages had a lot of edge cases and strange interactions with Git that you've had to work around. I think there may be some deep conflicts here between a source package that is inherently a useful basis for work and modification (one of the design goals of 3.0 (quilt), and also one of the things those of us who like Git source packages have always wanted) and a source package that is easy to reproducibly generate and contains as little complexity as possible so that the archive software doesn't need to use any complex tools. As long as I can get at the richer representation of the source, I think I don't really care what the archive distributes, but I can only speak for myself. My impression of Bastian's proposal is that his 4.0 looks a lot like 3.0 (native) with overlays, which at least reduces the necessary tools to the compressor and tar, although tar is still richer than one would ideally want and therefore kind of a mess from a reproducibility standpoint. -- Russ Allbery (r...@debian.org) <https://www.eyrie.org/~eagle/>
