On Tue, Jun 18, 2024 at 12:11:53PM -0400, Paul R. Tagliamonte wrote: > I wonder if we have a good idea of what the project believes to be the case > between #1 and #2: > > 1) Is the source of a package the debian source distribution? > 2) Is the source of a package the VCS where the source is held?
The project believes 1 is currently true. A large part of it wants 2 instead. So far a possibility of a path from 1 to 2 didn't appear, in part because of the famous (unwritten?) decision that we can't ship git history in the archive due to our licensing and distributability requirements. > Or, to extend it once more in the context of this discussion -- should the > source be built by a buildd from the "true" source? Why do we bother having > a maintainer sign this intermediate artifact, like we used to with debs? > > Even more extremely -- should we bother with dscs anymore if they're just > an intermediate artifact? I think a large part of the project, maybe most of it, doesn't care about dscs. I'd expect most people caring about dscs to be people using them for various partially or fully external purposes like analyzing, rebuilding, redistributing or archiving. This doesn't count people who want to continue building and uploading source packages using old tools and not using git, though. > Most extremely -- do we need a new dpkg source format? We already have 3.0 (git)... > Should buildds build off git tags? Do we need to overhaul how we treat > sources? Seems so? -- WBR, wRAR
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
