On 2020-09-18 at 21:45:01, Andreas Grünbacher wrote: > What I had in mind were actually distro packages: most projects > nowadays live somewhere in git repositories. When they're packaged, > this usually results in a source package with a diff on top of a > baseline release, so the commit history is lost. Friendly packagers > include the commit hashes and point users to a suitable git > repository, but that's not enforced or consistent. Including the > actual git history in packages would be much nicer (i.e., a git > bundle), but if that can't replace the patch as well, it's rather > unlikely to happen. Debian considered using Git as part of the 3.0 (git) format, but the problem with that is that some upstreams include non-free or undistributable material in their repositories, and obviously Debian can't distribute such software in main. Tarballs can be repacked, but it's harder to rewrite Git history to exclude objects. I do think the idea is cool and it would be a neat application, but distributing the source history of an upstream project is tricky for for packagers for practical reasons. -- brian m. carlson: Houston, Texas, US
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
