On 17/09/25 1:23 am, Andreas Tille wrote: > Am Fri, Sep 12, 2025 at 02:25:16PM +0300 schrieb Andrius Merkys: >> On 2025-09-12 08:16, Charles Plessy wrote: >>> since we are anyway losing byte-to-byte identity with upstream tarballs, >>> would >>> there be any drawback in converting the multi-orig packages to standard >>> single-orig ones? >> >> I might have missed something, but why we are losing the byte-to-byte >> identity? > > If you tar up some directory its not granted that if some other user is > doing the same at some different time the tarball is byte identical. > Only after unpackaging the two tarballs the unpackaged trees are byte > identical again. Storing the pristine-tar information solves this > problem (to 99,99% - there are always people who say its not working but > was never the case for me). > > I've read the discussion with interest and I admit I feel better when > having some orig.tar.gz that is identical with what can be found > upstream and in the vast majority of cases we do not do any repackaging. > > Its hard to accomplish this if more than one developer is contributing > to the packaging of the new upstream version when not using > pristine-tar. I'm happy to see tag2upload to gain traktion. However, > loosing pristine-tar features just because tag2upload does not support > it seems unfortunate to me.
I heard from Andrea (in person at Debconf) that they intend to work on pristine-tar support for t2u. So I'd suggest to wait a little bit. Technically, t2u is still in Beta. There's also #1106071 filed for supporting pristine-tar. I'd suggest to wait a little bit before we change our workflows. I am hopeful that support eventually will be added.
