❦ 18 mars 2014 16:00 CET, Guillem Jover <guil...@debian.org> : > On Thu, 2014-03-13 at 14:21:22 +0900, Charles Plessy wrote: >> On the other hand, the "upstream" tarballs are becoming temporary cruft that >> are not the preferred form for modification because they do not contain the >> typical revision information and comments found in version control systems >> used >> upstream. This was not the case when Debian was founded, but as the world >> evolves, we need to evolve. > > You keep bringing this up, and it keeps making no sense. Upstream > authors, use $EDITOR (be that vim, gimp, etc) to modify the files, > might use $VCS (be that diff, cvs, git, etc) to track modifications > on those files, and use $PUBLISHER (be that tarball, patch, $VCS, etc) > to distribute the files. And still when talking about the preferred > form of modification, it's all about the _files_ themselves, not any > of the above, what's relevant is if we are dealing with say a foo.S > foo.c or foo.o file, and if one is the source for the other.
That's not all clear. What if a part of the build process is using VCS?
For example, to generate the changelog... Just to say that "preferred
form of modification" should not be the ultimate weapon for
anything. What about scanned artworks? Should we ship the original piece
of paper that was scanned?
--
# Okay, what on Earth is this one supposed to be used for?
2.4.0 linux/drivers/char/cp437.uni
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
