Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > linux.debian.maint.python > #13448
| From | Paul Wise <pabs@debian.org> |
|---|---|
| Newsgroups | linux.debian.maint.python |
| Subject | Re: [RFC] DPT Policy: Canonise recommendation against PyPi-provided upstream source tarballs |
| Date | 2021-06-26 04:10 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <Cu5VD-7Vg-1@gated-at.bofh.it> (permalink) |
| References | <Cu0VX-4MG-5@gated-at.bofh.it> <Cu1p0-5bB-11@gated-at.bofh.it> <Cu2uK-5Mv-3@gated-at.bofh.it> <Cu3K9-6qc-1@gated-at.bofh.it> |
| Organization | linux.* mail to news gateway |
On Fri, Jun 25, 2021 at 11:42 PM Jeremy Stanley wrote: > 1. Cryptographically signed tags in a Git repository, with > versioning, revision history, release notes and authorship either > embedded within or tied to the Git metadata. > > 2. Cryptographically signed tarballs of the file tree corresponding > to a tag in the Git repository, with versioning, revision > history, release notes and authorship extracted into files > included directly within the tarball. I would like to see #2 split into two separate tarballs, one for the exact copy of the git tree and one containing the data about the other tarball. Then use dpkg-source v3 secondary tarballs to add the data about the git repo to the Debian source package. > Saying that a raw dump of the file content from a revision control > system is recommended over using upstream's sdists presumes all > upstreams are the same. They're not, and which is preferable (or > doable, or even legal) differs from one to another. Just because > some sdists, or even many, are not suitable as a basis for packaging > doesn't mean that sdists are a bad idea to base packages on. Yes, > basing packages on bad sdists is bad, it's hard to disagree with > that. Probably we should start systematically comparing upstream VCS repos with upstream sdists and reacting to the differences. So far, I've reacted by ignoring the sdists completely. -- bye, pabs https://wiki.debian.org/PaulWise
Back to linux.debian.maint.python | Previous | Next — Previous in thread | Next in thread | Find similar | Unroll thread
[RFC] DPT Policy: Canonise recommendation against PyPi-provided upstream source tarballs Nicholas D Steeves <sten@debian.org> - 2021-06-25 22:50 +0200
Re: [RFC] DPT Policy: Canonise recommendation against PyPi-provided upstream source tarballs Jeremy Stanley <fungi@yuggoth.org> - 2021-06-25 23:20 +0200
Re: [RFC] DPT Policy: Canonise recommendation against PyPi-provided upstream source tarballs Scott Talbert <swt@techie.net> - 2021-06-25 23:40 +0200
Re: [RFC] DPT Policy: Canonise recommendation against PyPi-provided upstream source tarballs Nicholas D Steeves <sten@debian.org> - 2021-06-26 00:50 +0200
Re: [RFC] DPT Policy: Canonise recommendation against PyPi-provided upstream source tarballs Nicholas D Steeves <sten@debian.org> - 2021-06-26 00:30 +0200
Re: [RFC] DPT Policy: Canonise recommendation against PyPi-provided upstream source tarballs Jeremy Stanley <fungi@yuggoth.org> - 2021-06-26 01:50 +0200
Re: [RFC] DPT Policy: Canonise recommendation against PyPi-provided upstream source tarballs Nicholas D Steeves <sten@debian.org> - 2021-06-26 02:10 +0200
Re: [RFC] DPT Policy: Canonise recommendation against PyPi-provided upstream source tarballs Paul Wise <pabs@debian.org> - 2021-06-26 04:10 +0200
Re: [RFC] DPT Policy: Canonise recommendation against PyPi-provided upstream source tarballs Jeremy Stanley <fungi@yuggoth.org> - 2021-06-26 06:20 +0200
Re: [RFC] DPT Policy: Canonise recommendation against PyPi-provided upstream source tarballs Martin <debacle@debian.org> - 2021-06-26 11:30 +0200
Re: [RFC] DPT Policy: Canonise recommendation against PyPi-provided upstream source tarballs Simon McVittie <smcv@debian.org> - 2021-06-26 12:20 +0200
Re: [RFC] DPT Policy: Canonise recommendation against PyPi-provided upstream source tarballs Paul Wise <pabs@debian.org> - 2021-06-26 04:00 +0200
Re: [RFC] DPT Policy: Canonise recommendation against PyPi-provided upstream source tarballs Simon McVittie <smcv@debian.org> - 2021-06-26 00:10 +0200
Re: [RFC] DPT Policy: Canonise recommendation against PyPi-provided upstream source tarballs Nicholas D Steeves <sten@debian.org> - 2021-06-26 01:10 +0200
Re: [RFC] DPT Policy: Canonise recommendation against PyPi-provided upstream source tarballs Jeremy Stanley <fungi@yuggoth.org> - 2021-06-26 02:00 +0200
Re: [RFC] DPT Policy: Canonise recommendation against PyPi-provided upstream source tarballs Brian Thompson <brian@hashvault.io> - 2021-06-26 05:50 +0200
Re: [RFC] DPT Policy: Canonise recommendation against PyPi-provided upstream source tarballs Donald Stufft <donald@stufft.io> - 2021-06-26 06:30 +0200
Re: [RFC] DPT Policy: Canonise recommendation against PyPi-provided upstream source tarballs Paul Wise <pabs@debian.org> - 2021-06-26 04:00 +0200
Re: [RFC] DPT Policy: Canonise recommendation against PyPi-provided upstream source tarballs Louis-Philippe Véronneau <pollo@debian.org> - 2021-06-27 01:00 +0200
Re: [RFC] DPT Policy: Canonise recommendation against PyPi-provided upstream source tarballs Jeremy Stanley <fungi@yuggoth.org> - 2021-06-27 02:20 +0200
Re: [RFC] DPT Policy: Canonise recommendation against PyPi-provided upstream source tarballs Emmanuel Arias <eamanu@yaerobi.com> - 2021-06-28 04:50 +0200
Re: [RFC] DPT Policy: Canonise recommendation against PyPi-provided upstream source tarballs Jeremy Stanley <fungi@yuggoth.org> - 2021-06-28 18:30 +0200
csiph-web