My belief is that if someone uses the "Release" mechanism, that is covered
the sentence which states:
"If the upstream *does* create tarballs you should use them as tarballs
provide an easier trail for people auditing the packages."
By creating the tag, upstream has clearly indicated their intent; who are
we to second-guess them?
The commit hash part comes into play when a Revision or Tag has not been
I also added some verbiage to my draft which discusses your point about the
different naming conventions that
you have observed.
On Tue, Jun 23, 2015 at 1:16 PM, Michael Cronenworth <mike(a)cchtml.com>
On 06/23/2015 12:09 PM, Gerald B. Cox wrote:
> I'm working on a revision here:
> I'll take a look at that and see if I can clarify since I'm already
> working on it.
Are you proposing to include or exclude the URL types that use the
"Release" mechanism? Some interpret the guidelines to exclude them, but as
I noted many packages interpret they may include them.
packaging mailing list