| Message ID | fa924d0754ef385b1706721751e5f6f00e60c199.1502649259.git.baruch@tkos.co.il |
|---|---|
| State | Changes Requested |
| Headers | show |
Hello, On Sun, 13 Aug 2017 21:34:18 +0300, Baruch Siach wrote: > The github repo is more informative than the list Marco's software on > the previous link. > > Cc: Gustavo Zacarias <gustavo@zacarias.com.ar> > Signed-off-by: Baruch Siach <baruch@tkos.co.il> What about switching the upstream to be Github, instead of fetching from Debian? The Github repo has all the releases available: https://github.com/rfc1036/whois/releases. Just make sure that the 5.2.14 tarball we were getting from Debian is similar in contents to what we get from the Github repository for the same version. Thanks, Thomas
Hi Thomas, On Mon, Aug 14, 2017 at 10:03:54PM +0200, Thomas Petazzoni wrote: > On Sun, 13 Aug 2017 21:34:18 +0300, Baruch Siach wrote: > > The github repo is more informative than the list Marco's software on > > the previous link. > > > > Cc: Gustavo Zacarias <gustavo@zacarias.com.ar> > > Signed-off-by: Baruch Siach <baruch@tkos.co.il> > > What about switching the upstream to be Github, instead of fetching > from Debian? The Github repo has all the releases available: > https://github.com/rfc1036/whois/releases. > > Just make sure that the 5.2.14 tarball we were getting from Debian is > similar in contents to what we get from the Github repository for the > same version. But we generally prefer upstream provided tarballs, aren't we? Moreover, in this case the Debian repo provides a smaller .tar.xz, and an upstream computed SHA256 in the .dsc file. You don't get that from github. baruch
On 15-08-17 06:14, Baruch Siach wrote: > Hi Thomas, > > On Mon, Aug 14, 2017 at 10:03:54PM +0200, Thomas Petazzoni wrote: >> On Sun, 13 Aug 2017 21:34:18 +0300, Baruch Siach wrote: >>> The github repo is more informative than the list Marco's software on >>> the previous link. >>> >>> Cc: Gustavo Zacarias <gustavo@zacarias.com.ar> >>> Signed-off-by: Baruch Siach <baruch@tkos.co.il> >> What about switching the upstream to be Github, instead of fetching >> from Debian? The Github repo has all the releases available: >> https://github.com/rfc1036/whois/releases. >> >> Just make sure that the 5.2.14 tarball we were getting from Debian is >> similar in contents to what we get from the Github repository for the >> same version. > But we generally prefer upstream provided tarballs, aren't we? Moreover, in > this case the Debian repo provides a smaller .tar.xz, and an upstream computed > SHA256 in the .dsc file. You don't get that from github. On Sunday, I was going to ask the same question, and came to the same conclusion about the tar.xz and the sha256. Unfortunately, I don't remember why I didn't just apply it then and there... Regards, Arnout
Hello, On Tue, 15 Aug 2017 12:10:17 +0200, Arnout Vandecappelle wrote: > > But we generally prefer upstream provided tarballs, aren't we? Moreover, in > > this case the Debian repo provides a smaller .tar.xz, and an upstream computed > > SHA256 in the .dsc file. You don't get that from github. > > On Sunday, I was going to ask the same question, and came to the same > conclusion about the tar.xz and the sha256. Unfortunately, I don't remember why > I didn't just apply it then and there... I definitely don't agree here. We should use upstream when it exists, even if it provides things that are less "convenient" than Debian. Otherwise, we're going to convert a *lot* of packages to use tarballs from Debian rather than from upstream. What will happen when we'll want to bump to a new upstream version that hasn't been packaged by Debian ? Sorry, but I definitely disagree here. Please use the real upstream. Best regards, Thomas
Hi Thomas, On Tue, Aug 15, 2017 at 12:56:21PM +0200, Thomas Petazzoni wrote: > On Tue, 15 Aug 2017 12:10:17 +0200, Arnout Vandecappelle wrote: > > > > But we generally prefer upstream provided tarballs, aren't we? Moreover, in > > > this case the Debian repo provides a smaller .tar.xz, and an upstream computed > > > SHA256 in the .dsc file. You don't get that from github. > > > > On Sunday, I was going to ask the same question, and came to the same > > conclusion about the tar.xz and the sha256. Unfortunately, I don't remember why > > I didn't just apply it then and there... > > I definitely don't agree here. We should use upstream when it exists, > even if it provides things that are less "convenient" than Debian. > > Otherwise, we're going to convert a *lot* of packages to use tarballs > from Debian rather than from upstream. > > What will happen when we'll want to bump to a new upstream version that > hasn't been packaged by Debian ? As things stand now this is quite unlikely. The whois package Debian maintainer and the upstream developer are the same person, Marco d'Itri. The only upstream in-tree changelog file is at debian/changelog. > Sorry, but I definitely disagree here. Please use the real upstream. The real whois upstream README file says this: The canonical distribution point for releases of the program is http://ftp.debian.org/debian/pool/main/w/whois/ . baruch
Hello, On Tue, 15 Aug 2017 14:20:18 +0300, Baruch Siach wrote: > On Tue, Aug 15, 2017 at 12:56:21PM +0200, Thomas Petazzoni wrote: > > On Tue, 15 Aug 2017 12:10:17 +0200, Arnout Vandecappelle wrote: > > > > > > But we generally prefer upstream provided tarballs, aren't we? Moreover, in > > > > this case the Debian repo provides a smaller .tar.xz, and an upstream computed > > > > SHA256 in the .dsc file. You don't get that from github. > > > > > > On Sunday, I was going to ask the same question, and came to the same > > > conclusion about the tar.xz and the sha256. Unfortunately, I don't remember why > > > I didn't just apply it then and there... > > > > I definitely don't agree here. We should use upstream when it exists, > > even if it provides things that are less "convenient" than Debian. > > > > Otherwise, we're going to convert a *lot* of packages to use tarballs > > from Debian rather than from upstream. > > > > What will happen when we'll want to bump to a new upstream version that > > hasn't been packaged by Debian ? > > As things stand now this is quite unlikely. The whois package Debian > maintainer and the upstream developer are the same person, Marco d'Itri. The > only upstream in-tree changelog file is at debian/changelog. > > > Sorry, but I definitely disagree here. Please use the real upstream. > > The real whois upstream README file says this: > > The canonical distribution point for releases of the program is > http://ftp.debian.org/debian/pool/main/w/whois/ . Fair enough. But I still find it completely weird to have the Github page as the "project home page" indicated in the Config.in file, and not use that as the upstream. And Arnout has put PATCH 1/3 back to the New state, while I still disagree with the approach being taken. Best regards, Thomas
On 15-08-17 14:07, Thomas Petazzoni wrote: > Hello, > > On Tue, 15 Aug 2017 14:20:18 +0300, Baruch Siach wrote: > >> On Tue, Aug 15, 2017 at 12:56:21PM +0200, Thomas Petazzoni wrote: [snip] >> The real whois upstream README file says this: >> >> The canonical distribution point for releases of the program is >> http://ftp.debian.org/debian/pool/main/w/whois/ . > > Fair enough. But I still find it completely weird to have the Github > page as the "project home page" indicated in the Config.in file, and > not use that as the upstream. It's weird, but it is what it is. Don't we have any other package where the github repo is the upstream URL, but the release tarball comes from somewhere else? > And Arnout has put PATCH 1/3 back to the New state, while I still > disagree with the approach being taken. Sorry, I hadn't seen your reply to 1/3, I had also seen your reply to 2/3 and considered that Baruch and I had given sufficient feedback to warrant going back to New. With your reply to 1/3, it indeed makes sense to set the entire series to Changes Requested. However, I'm just going to apply patch 3/3 now, since there is no objection to that one. So only 1/3 and 2/3 will be Changes Requested.
diff --git a/package/whois/Config.in b/package/whois/Config.in index 9505d5832056..d2a030282b76 100644 --- a/package/whois/Config.in +++ b/package/whois/Config.in @@ -4,4 +4,4 @@ config BR2_PACKAGE_WHOIS help Improved whois client. - http://www.linux.it/~md/software/ + https://github.com/rfc1036/whois
The github repo is more informative than the list Marco's software on the previous link. Cc: Gustavo Zacarias <gustavo@zacarias.com.ar> Signed-off-by: Baruch Siach <baruch@tkos.co.il> --- package/whois/Config.in | 2 +- 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)