On Wednesday, June 12, 2024 10:10:58 AM MST Russ Allbery wrote: > In my personal opinion, tag2upload is more compelling for packages where > the upstream maintainer treats Git tags as their primary release artifact, > and less compelling for packages where the upstream maintainer views Git > as a possibly incomplete implementation detail of their workflow and > signed tarball releases as the only supported release artifact. I would > pick and choose when to use it based on those sorts of factors. That's > one of the reasons, in my mind, why use of it would be entirely optional. > It's an extension of Debian packaging practices to a Git-first world, and > therefore makes the most sense when upstream has adopted a Git-first > development approach.
I completely endorse this statement. What works best for packaging depends a lot on how upstream is organized. Having the *option* to do everything in Git when that matches upstream or otherwise is desirable is a rational progression in Debian’s architecture. -- Soren Stoutner so...@debian.org
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
