Hello, On Sun 03 Aug 2025 at 03:59pm +02, Andrea Pappacoda wrote:
> On Sun Aug 3, 2025 at 3:15 PM CEST, Sean Whitton wrote: >> I thought that the .delta files were mostly to cover, for example, the >> tarball containing autotools-generated files that aren't in git? >> Isn't that a key use case? > > Mhh, I'd say no, maybe. Let me explain. > > The main undeniable advantage of pristine-tar is regenerating a tarball > which is bit-by-bit identical to the upstream one, without having to > keep the actual tarball around. This is useful for source > reproducibility use cases (ignoring that Git is better for this anyway). > > I argue that containing autotools-generated files is not the main use > case because in the usual git-buildpackage workflow you actually import > the tarballs into git, so the Debian git tree has the autotools stuff as > well. > > When one uses a mixed upstream git + tarballs gbp workflow, the tarball > contents gets applied as a new commit on top of the upstream git tag. > So, even there, the contents of the tarball match the contents of the > git tree pointed by the upstream/latest branch (minus stuff like empty > dirs). > > So, we can just say: if you want to use pristine-tar, make sure to > commit its contents to the upstream/latest branch (gbp does this by > default anyway). > > Note: here I use "upstream/latest" to refer to the branch containing the > upstream code to be used for package builds. It could have a different > name, of course, but that's what DEP14 recommends. Thanks for confirming, Andrea -- we're on the same page. -- Sean Whitton
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
