Ian Jackson <ijack...@chiark.greenend.org.uk> writes: > On `source code': I think everyone should have the same definition of > `source code' for git as for tarballs.
I understand why you feel this way, particularly given the tools that you're working on, but this is not something I'm going to change as upstream. Git does not contain generated files, and the tarball release does, because those two things are for different audiences. Including the generated files in Git generates a bunch of churn and irritating problems on branch merges for no real gain for developers. Not including them makes it impossible for less sophisticated users to deploy my software from source on older systems on systems that do not have Autoconf and friends installed for whatever reason. Both of those are real use cases I regularly encounter, and having different contents in Git and the release tarball solves both use cases quite well, with only a minor and easily-automated inconvenience for packaging tools. I say this not to pick a fight, since it's totally okay with me that you feel differently, but to be clear that, regardless of preferences, the reality that we'll have to deal with is that upstreams are not going to follow this principle. I know I'm not alone in putting my foot down on this point. -- Russ Allbery (r...@debian.org) <http://www.eyrie.org/~eagle/> -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: https://lists.debian.org/871tqjew96....@hope.eyrie.org
