Am 24.05.21 um 11:22 schrieb Nilesh Patra: > > > On Mon, 24 May, 2021, 11:00 am Andreas Tille, <andr...@an3as.eu > <mailto:andr...@an3as.eu>> wrote: > > On Mon, May 24, 2021 at 01:26:47AM +0200, Steffen Möller wrote: > > > > Should there be a bug report about the missing test data in the pypi > > tarball? > > May be. But to my observation it is very common that the PyPI tarball > is lacking something we can profit for our packaging. > > > Yeah, that's why I always dislike pulling from pypi.d.n or anything > similar. > Often a lot of times, pypi doesn't vendor test files whereas GitHub > does, and that alone looks a strong reason to pull from GitHub - > atleast to me > > That's why I > prefer the Github tarball - provided it is tagged which is > unfortunately > not always the case. Seems like fighting against windmills to teach > upstreams sometimes. :-( > > > Sure. > However I do have a workaround for that. > You can pull from GitHub upto the commit a version is tagged, and add > a "git mode" with "pretty=<version in pypi>+git%cd.%h" in d/watch > > Sure, it has its own demerits but maybe worth trying - to me it looks > better than pypi tags
I agree that technically this is doable, and for the short term also desirable, but in my perception, at the end of the day, Debian is about people - Upstream+DDs+DMs+users. We should use these kind of opportunities to get in touch with upstream and work with them. Maybe even the one or other additional DD comes out of this and/or we are informed about future missing dependencies prior to a new version being tagged. This will not always be successful, but even if not, we have saved some time and can work on completing and testing the workflow that embeds that tool in the meantime. Cheers, Steffen
