Wichmann, Mats D wrote: > Stanley, Jon wrote: > > Thanks Bob. I was going to send a similar mail to the list. The one > > thing that you didn't mention (but alluded to) that I will > > explicitly is that one of the paramount principles of packaging in > > RPM is that of reproducible builds - anyone that you give the SRPM > > to should be capable of producing an identical binary RPM. When you > > introdice dynamic sources such as svn, CVS, git, etc., that becomes > > impossible, and thus defeats the design principles of RPM. I have found that a lot of people working in corporate america and using rpms internally to their organization don't have the same values as people building rpm for wide consumption. In those cases they often don't care about things like that. Oh well. It is the way it goes. There isn't one size fits everyone. > I guess I'm saying if people don't play foolish games (moving tags > around) with their version-control repo, repo-vs-tarball is probably > a pretty small factor in the reproducibility game. Nonetheless I do > personally prefer having a tarball available. I also prefer a tar file and will create one just for the purpose of being able to archive everything. Subversion is a lot better than CVS or the previous RCS about maintaining the history in spite of what people might try to do to it. With CVS/RCS because the back end is very transparent I have had problems with people doing things like moving the ,v files around and breaking all history. Grrr... So in the past that was more imporant than it is today. It is still important in my mind though. But svn and all of the modern generation of version control systems are much better at maintaining the full history of the directory tree and it is much harder to break it. Bob _______________________________________________ Rpm-list mailing list Rpm-list@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/rpm-list
