Paul Wise <p...@debian.org> writes: > I think the best solution is to send upstream some patches that remove > the files in question from the VCS and add commands to their build > system to build the files in question from their source.
In my experience, many upstreams have an aversion to an explicit build step, because they see VCS as not only a VCS, but also as an end-user distribution platform. So they actively resist the concept that the VCS should contain the source only, because they want end-users to have the files needed to drop in place and go — without introducing a post-download build process. Couple this with the widespread practice of bundling third-party libraries into one's source tree, but taking no responsibility for their provenance or maintenance, and you have a recipe for a painful job for Debian package maintainers. The needs of system integrators like the Debian project, who need to have “get the full corresponding source” distinct from “deploy for run-time”, are foreign to this way of working. I'm meeting more and more resistance from upstreams to ensuring a clean source tree, because of this. In cases where the upstream doesn't have this desire for users to deploy directly from VCS with no build step, it can be easier to convince them to remove non-source forms. But that is less often the case, as “just clone this repo and run” becomes the deployment method of choice. -- \ “Value your freedom or you will lose it, teaches history. | `\ “Don't bother us with politics,” respond those who don't want | _o__) to learn.” —Richard M. Stallman, 2002 | Ben Finney -- 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/858uj61nr2....@benfinney.id.au