[tryton-debian] tarball compression

[Raphael Hertzog]

On Tue, 28 Jan 2014, Mathias Behrle wrote:
> Yes. But who uses it for what purpose? As soon as the upstream tarball is in
> pristine-tar, this is the relevant source. Does anyone control the source
> tarballs of all those dfsg packages?

I don't know of anything/anyone that verifies whether Debian source tarball
matches the upstream source tarball, but I could see some value in that
and hence I'd rather not repackage when there's no need to.

BTW, why are you speaking of "dfsg" packages (assuming those
like wordpress who have an upstream version that embeds "+dfsg") ? Those
are precisely the packages which have to be repackaged to remove non-dfsg
compliant content and here we can affor to change the compression scheme
since we have to repack anyway.

> For me a 30-50% faster upload is a significant difference with my small
> upload. dpkg now using xz as default will have its rationales, too. Having
> orig.tar.gz and debian.tar.xz for me is just ugly and inconsequent.

Feel free to keep doing it for packages > 1 Mb. I tend to agree with the
ugliness, but my first reaction would be to work with upstream so that
they provide tar.xz.

> > If you really care about this, you'd better convince upstream to provide
> > xz tarballs.
> 
> Upstream uses python standards and setuptools misses this feature. 

Nothing that can't be fixed, isn't it?

> > I'm not going to reject packages because they are recompressed, but I
> > would suggest you to not continue doing that.
> 
> I will revert the changes introduced by Daniel and use gz tarballs. I am tired
> of this discussion and it takes too much of my time.

Don't revert for current packages. Just start using pristine upstream
tarballs for every new upstream version that you package.

Out of curiosity, what are those changes ? What's the workflow that you are
using ?

Cheers,
-- 
Raphaël Hertzog ◈ Debian Developer

Discover the Debian Administrator's Handbook:
→ http://debian-handbook.info/get/