On 8/27/24 22:30, Jeremy Stanley wrote:
On 2024-08-27 19:41:54 +0200 (+0200), tho...@goirand.fr wrote:
[...]
All you wrote is precisely why I am not using these tarballs. I
know we don't agree... :)
Also, the FTP master do NOT want the changeLog as they are too big
and provide no value when one can check the git repo to find the
same info.
Sure, but the assembled release notes are not nearly as large as the
changelog while still relying on having Git history available to
build, and the generated authorship list is referred to in the
license information for at least one OpenStack project as a stand-in
for referencing Git committer metadata.
To put it another way, upstream in OpenStack when the project was
started in 2010, we were aware that package maintainers preferred
signed and clearly versioned tarballs for every release, so that's
what we structured our workflows and tooling around providing. In
the meantime, package maintainers decided to take advantage of the
fact that we use Git repositories in our development workflow but
the release process we settled on isn't designed with that in mind,
and changing workflows and processes in a developer community that
size is sometimes like trying to steer a train.
Well, I don't want to just package the generated stuff, I would prefer
to have the tools to generate them myself from source at build time. And
that's what has been bothering me since the beginning: I do not know how
to do that, currently, neither for the authorship list or the release
notes. In both case, the Git repo is needed, and that doesn't fit at all
a packaging workflow, unless I embed all of the .git folder in the
source package. This was truth in 2010, and still is in 2024...
As a consequence, I decided not to care, as I haven't find a solution to
"build from source", so I'm not packaging release notes and authorship
list. It's probably my fault that I didn't contribute some fixes to reno
though.
Cheers,
Thomas Goirand (zigo)
