Jeremy Stanley writes ("Re: Projects that need full Git repositories or
upstream tarballs"):
> This is getting into the weeds of our workflow automation, but
> currently the system works like this:
I feel uncomfortable about this whole subthread. I think your
project's approach is excellent. You should not change anything.
I think you should move on, and stop trying to explain to, or placate,
thsoe who want you to somehow produce "better" (from their point of
view) tarballs or git branches, containing artifacts or whatever.
Those people mean well, but they are IMNSHO[1] fundamentally
misguided.
Your *actual source code* git tag, generated here
> 4. Automation ... pushes a signed tag
> into the official repository for the project
seems absolutely perfect to me for use by Debian.
In Debian we only want to ingest upstream *source code*. If there are
generated artifacts in whatever form we take from upstream, that's
just a nuisance and a possibel hazard, from Debian's point of view.
(I think this part is uncontroversial.)
The use of upstream *git* rather than tarballs is, disappointly,
controversial. Alarmingly it seems like it may have become *more*
controversial since, say, 2013 (when Joey Hess wrote scathingly about
Debian's "gleaming nest of pristine tarballs" and I wrote dgit). But
I don't think you (with your upstream hat on) need concern yourself
with that.
Regards,
Ian.
[1] In My Not So Humble Opinion.
--
Ian Jackson <[email protected]> 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.
