On 7 August 2017 at 12:28, Anthony J. Bentley <anth...@anjbe.name> wrote:
> Most package systems do not support version control checkouts. Maybe
> Debian does. I know OpenBSD does not.
>
> *Every* package system supports tarballs.
>
That's true and I agree tarballs need to exist, but...
> I cannot think of a single instance as a packager when I would have
> preferred an upstream to *not* pregenerate configure.
>
config.guess specifically bit-rots rather quickly. OpenBSD port builds even
wholly replaces the provided config.guess because of this issue. The other
generated files have also been known to bit-rot.
These days, Debian's guidelines asks for non-generated sources, because
"This rebuilds all auto-generated files to the latest version ones and
provides better supports for the porting to the newer architectures". The
same holds for Fedora / CentOS / RHEL: "...suggested that such code be
regenerated as part of the build process."
> I'm happy that the unofficial Debian repos seem to help. But if
> apertium decides to *only* cater to Debian nightly builds, and not
> release even occasional tarballs, I will be unable to keep apertium
> packages up to date on OpenBSD.
We will continue to provide tarballs. Nobody is trying to block that, not
even me. I just want the nature of the tarballs to be more raw, to aid
portability and avoid bit-rot.
-- Tino Didriksen
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Check out the vibrant tech community on one of the world's most
engaging tech sites, Slashdot.org! http://sdm.link/slashdot
_______________________________________________
Apertium-stuff mailing list
Apertium-stuff@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/apertium-stuff
