Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > linux.debian.maint.python > #12503 > unrolled thread

Re: [Python-modules-team] python-xlib_0.26-1_source.changes ACCEPTED into unstable

Back to article view | Back to linux.debian.maint.python

This discussion starts older than the indexed window; earlier articles aren't shown. The article labeled Started by below is the oldest one visible, not the original post.

Contents

  Re: [Python-modules-team] python-xlib_0.26-1_source.changes ACCEPTED  into unstable Sandro Tosi <morph@debian.org> - 2020-04-22 23:50 +0200
    Re: [Python-modules-team] python-xlib_0.26-1_source.changes ACCEPTED  into unstable Andrej Shadura <andrewsh@debian.org> - 2020-04-23 08:30 +0200

#12503 — Re: [Python-modules-team] python-xlib_0.26-1_source.changes ACCEPTED into unstable

Andrej,
can you please clarify why you're keep using pristine-lfs even when
prompted not to? this is just from 2 packages uploaded in the last
hour (ftr, pyopenssl is broken now..)

https://salsa.debian.org/python-team/modules/pyopenssl/-/tree/pristine-lfs
https://salsa.debian.org/python-team/modules/urwid/-/tree/pristine-lfs

On Sat, Mar 21, 2020 at 3:31 PM Scott Kitterman <debian@kitterman.com> wrote:
>
> On Saturday, March 21, 2020 3:02:27 PM EDT Andrej Shadura wrote:
> > Hi,
> >
> > On Sat, 21 Mar 2020 at 19:39, Sandro Tosi <morph@debian.org> wrote:
> > > > On Sat, 21 Mar 2020 at 18:01, Sandro Tosi <morph@debian.org> wrote:
> > > > > Andrej,
> > > > > why the pristine-tar information are now in a `pristine-lfs` branch?
> > > > > where did the other pristine-tar deltas go?
> > > >
> > > > Because it’s simpler and better as it guarantees the tarballs are bit
> > > > to bit identical, which pristine-tar so often fails to do. There was
> > > > no pristine-tar or pristine-lfs information for earlier uploads.
> > >
> > > but our team policy requires to use pristine-tar:
> > > https://salsa.debian.org/python-team/tools/python-modules/blob/master/poli
> > > cy.rst
> > >
> > > please adjust, so that we can all use the same tools and procedures.
> >
> > I suggest we rather change the policy since at the moment this point
> > lacks any rationale and isn’t providing any benefit since the
> > pristine-tar data are only useful for minor updates of the package
> > (e.g. when the upstream source hasn’t changed) and pristine-tar is
> > known to be a huge hack and fail to provide correct tarballs,
> > especially when xz is used.
>
> When you joined the team, you agreed to follow the team policies.  Please do
> so.
>
> The way to get the policy changed is not to ignore it and then get aggressive
> when called on it.
>
> Personally, I use the pristine-tar branch routinely (I used it multiple times
> just yesterday) and I've never had a problem with it.  Personally, while I
> know it's a hack, it's a working hack.
>
> Please do as you've been asked and then we can have a nice conversation about
> if we should change the way the team works.
>
> Scott K
> _______________________________________________
> Python-modules-team mailing list
> Python-modules-team@alioth-lists.debian.net
> https://alioth-lists.debian.net/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/python-modules-team



-- 
Sandro "morph" Tosi
My website: http://sandrotosi.me/
Me at Debian: http://wiki.debian.org/SandroTosi
Twitter: https://twitter.com/sandrotosi

[toc] | [next] | [standalone]

#12504

On Wed, 22 Apr 2020 at 23:44, Sandro Tosi <morph@debian.org> wrote:
> Andrej,
> can you please clarify why you're keep using pristine-lfs even when
> prompted not to? this is just from 2 packages uploaded in the last
> hour (ftr, pyopenssl is broken now..)

Sandro, wasn’t it all about pristine-tar missing? You (and others) use
pristine-tar, you need pristine-tar data. I don’t like it and don’t
use it, but okay, I don’t want you to get annoyed by the inability to
follow your workflow, I try and use pristine-tar every time. But
what’s wrong with also publishing a pristine-lfs branch? It doesn’t
prevent you in any way from doing things the way you were doing
before.

I will look at what happened with pyopenssl.

> https://salsa.debian.org/python-team/modules/pyopenssl/-/tree/pristine-lfs
> https://salsa.debian.org/python-team/modules/urwid/-/tree/pristine-lfs

> On Sat, Mar 21, 2020 at 3:31 PM Scott Kitterman <debian@kitterman.com> wrote:
> > The way to get the policy changed is not to ignore it and then get aggressive
> > when called on it.

Scott, I didn’t get aggressive, or, at least, it was not my intention.
I’m sorry if it came across as such. I genuinely believe that
pristine-tar should be gradually moved away from to something better,
as I had a misfortune to work with it on a large scale (hundreds of
packages) and I know how unreliable it sometimes is. Not only it
routinely generated tarballs with different checksums, it sometimes
failed to generate anything at all. I developed pristine-lfs as a
proper tool with the UI compatible with pristine-tar (instead of just
a custom script) specifically to help others use it without changing
workflows much.

-- 
Cheers,
  Andrej

[toc] | [prev] | [standalone]

Back to top | Article view | linux.debian.maint.python

csiph-web