2014-10-07 12:01 GMT-03:00 Matthias Urlichs <matth...@urlichs.de>: > Hi, > > Ian Jackson: > > On `source code': I think everyone should have the same definition of > > `source code' for git as for tarballs. > > > I beg to differ. Not in principle, but because tarballs and git trees > target different groups of users. > > I expect people who use my git trees to have a reasonably-recent system > which has a reasonably-current copy of autotools installed. > > I expect no such thing from people who download a tarball onto CentOS 5 > (or Solaris for that matter). They want "sh ./configure && make" to > work. (So do I, if/when I download a tarball, for that matter.) > > The source code, as in "the thing I work with when I want to change > the behavior of the program", is the git archive. It's not the tarball, > and it's empharically not anything produced by autotools. > (I really really don't like cluttering git trees with non-source.) > > I no longer regard tarballs as "source", strictly speaking. They're an > inconvenient (to me) way to package a bunch of files that can be used > to produce+install an executable. > > -- > -- Matthias Urlichs > > > -- > To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org > with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact > listmas...@lists.debian.org > Archive: https://lists.debian.org/20141007150126.gb3...@smurf.noris.de > >
-- Msc. Daniel Pimentel (d4n1 <http:/www.d4n1.org>)
