On Sat, Apr 06, 2024 at 03:54:51PM +0200, kpcyrd wrote:
>...
> autotools pre-processed source code is clearly not "the preferred form of
> the work for making modifications", which is specifically what I'm saying
> Debian shouldn't consider a "source code input" either, to eliminate this
> vector
On Sat, Apr 06, 2024 at 07:13:22PM +0800, Sean Whitton wrote:
> Hello,
>
> On Fri 05 Apr 2024 at 01:31am +03, Adrian Bunk wrote:
>
> >
> > Right now the preferred form of source in Debian is an upstream-signed
> > release tarball, NOT anything from git.
>
>
On Fri, Apr 05, 2024 at 01:30:51AM +0200, kpcyrd wrote:
> On 4/5/24 12:31 AM, Adrian Bunk wrote:
> > Hashes of "git archive" tarballs are anyway not stable,
> > so whatever a maintainer generates is not worse than what is on Github.
> >
> > An
On Thu, Apr 04, 2024 at 09:39:51PM +0200, kpcyrd wrote:
>...
> I've checked both, upstreams github release page and their website[1], but
> couldn't find any mention of .tar.xz, so I think my claim of Debian doing
> the compression is fair.
>
> [1]: https://www.vim.org/download.php
>...
Perhaps
On Wed, Apr 03, 2024 at 02:31:11AM +0200, kpcyrd wrote:
>...
> I figured out a somewhat straight-forward way to check if a given `git
> archive` output is cryptographically claimed to be the source input of a
> given binary package in either Arch Linux or Debian (or both).
For Debian the proper
