| 1 |
Il giorno gio, 18/08/2011 alle 11.15 +0200, Thomas Sachau ha scritto: |
| 2 |
> |
| 3 |
> The argument about dropped tarballs, once the ebuilds gets removed |
| 4 |
> might weight a bit more, but you |
| 5 |
> cannot depend on other upstream keeping their tarballs around forever, |
| 6 |
> so i see no requirement for |
| 7 |
> us preserving only specific tarballs (those created by our devs), |
| 8 |
> while upstream tarballs could |
| 9 |
> already be gone and are not preserved, once the ebuild for it is gone. |
| 10 |
|
| 11 |
Perfect is the enemy of good. |
| 12 |
|
| 13 |
_Most_ upstream projects keep tarballs available of all historic |
| 14 |
releases; okay maybe not _all_ projects, but most, especially those |
| 15 |
using services such as SourceForge, Google Code, RubyForge, |
| 16 |
Rubygems, ... |
| 17 |
|
| 18 |
For _our_ projects, snapshots, or packages, let's try to apply a sane |
| 19 |
policy. And that starts by not arguing that we shouldn't be doing so |
| 20 |
because others might not be doing so themselves. |
| 21 |
|
| 22 |
Heck, let's try to look up for the projects doing things right, not |
| 23 |
justify our failures with those doing things wrong. |
| 24 |
|
| 25 |
-- |
| 26 |
Diego Elio Pettenò — Flameeyes |
| 27 |
http://blog.flameeyes.eu/ |
Archives