On Nov 12, 2014, at 09:27 AM, Matthias Urlichs wrote: >Then we should either remove the paragraph entirely, or at least mention >the danger of bit rot and that it's unwise to rely on being able to recover >the tarfile (long term).
Because the vast majority of upstream Python packages are released as tarballs on PyPI, I have recommended that we continue to use pristine-tar for debian-python packages maintained in git, even with the oft-mentioned problems with pristine-tar. (Which FWIW, I have never seen *in practice*, though I know others have.) Other team members don't want to use pristine-tar for various reasons, and I think it makes less sense if upstream doesn't release on PyPI. >Jonathan Dowland: >> On Wed, Nov 12, 2014 at 03:38:59PM +0800, Paul Wise wrote: >> > Personally I wouldn't use anything other than debian-only repos, at >> > least for those where I have a choice. I also actively avoid >> > contributing to packages that don't use such repos. >> >> And I'm the exact opposite. > >FWIW: Me too. Debian-only is, to me, quite annoying, and a remnant of a >workflow that was once a necessity (with CVS/SVN). Not so with git. +1. On Ubuntu, we had sourceful branches with UDD (bzr-based Ubuntu Distributed Development). It always seemed more awkward to use debian-only branches in debian-python svn branches. Playing with sourceful e.g. git-dpm is a joy. Cheers, -Barry
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
