On Sun, 31 Mar 2024 10:12:35 -0700, Russ Allbery wrote: > > My point is that, while there will be for sure exceptions here and > > there, by and large the need for massaged tarballs comes from projects > > using autoconf and wanting to ship source archives that do not require > > to run the autoconf machinery. > Just as a data point, literally every C project for which I am upstream > ships additional files in the release tarballs that are not in Git for > reasons unrelated to Autoconf and friends.
This is also true for every perl distribution on the CPAN made with the standard build tools (and I write this as a response to a mail of yours as I know that you know what I'm talking about :)) > Just to note, though, this means that we lose the upstream signature in > the archive. The only place the upstream signature would then live is in > Salsa. This also means that we are, at least in some ecosystems, diverging from the preferred way of distribution, and maybe more important, that we are adding a new step 0 to our build process, which is: making a (fake) upstream release. Cheers, gregor -- .''`. https://info.comodo.priv.at -- Debian Developer https://www.debian.org : :' : OpenPGP fingerprint D1E1 316E 93A7 60A8 104D 85FA BB3A 6801 8649 AA06 `. `' Member VIBE!AT & SPI Inc. -- Supporter Free Software Foundation Europe `-
signature.asc
Description: Digital Signature
