On Wed, Feb 21, 2024 at 10:53:49PM +0000, Julien Grall wrote: > Hi George, > > On 21/02/2024 02:55, George Dunlap wrote: > > On Mon, Feb 19, 2024 at 6:38 PM Jan Beulich <jbeul...@suse.com> wrote: > > > > > > On 19.02.2024 11:31, Roger Pau Monné wrote: > > > > On Mon, Feb 19, 2024 at 06:01:54PM +0800, George Dunlap wrote: > > > > > One of the questions we had with respect to changing our release > > > > > practice (for instance, making the process more light-weight so that > > > > > we could do a point release after every XSA) was, "How many people are > > > > > actually using the tarballs?" > > > > > > > > What would this more lightweight process involve from a downstream > > > > PoV? IOW: in what would the contents of the tarball change compared > > > > to the current releases? > > > > > > From all prior discussion my conclusion was "no tarball at all". > > > > Or at very least, the tarball would be a simple `git archive` of a > > release tag. Right now the tarball creation has a number of > > annoyingly manual parts about it. > At the moment we have the following steps: > > 1) Checkout tag > 2) Create the tarball > 3) Check the source tarball can build > 4) Sign the tarball > 5) Upload it > > I managed to script it so I have only two commands to execute (mostly > because I build and sign on a different host). > > AFAIU, your command 'git archive' will only replace 2. Am I correct? If so, > it is not entirely clear how your proposal is going to make it better.
IMO building for release tarballs is easier than from a git checkout (or archive). It's a bit annoying to have to pre-download the external project sources, now even more as QEMU is using git submodules. Most distro binary builders have infrastructure to deal with all this, but requires a bit more logic in the recipe than a plain just fetch a tarball and build from it. Thanks, Roger.
