From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.6 (2021-04-09) on starla X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.7 required=3.0 tests=DKIM_INVALID,DKIM_SIGNED, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS,MAILING_LIST_MULTI,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED, SPF_HELO_PASS,SPF_PASS autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.6 Received: from lists.gnu.org (lists.gnu.org [209.51.188.17]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by dcvr.yhbt.net (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 4A0E91F44D for ; Thu, 25 Apr 2024 13:29:42 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: dcvr.yhbt.net; dkim=fail reason="signature verification failed" (2048-bit key; unprotected) header.d=clisp.org header.i=@clisp.org header.a=rsa-sha256 header.s=strato-dkim-0002 header.b=QLFPmBvN; dkim=fail reason="signature verification failed" header.d=clisp.org header.i=@clisp.org header.a=ed25519-sha256 header.s=strato-dkim-0003 header.b=Jku3RTs9; dkim-atps=neutral Received: from localhost ([::1] helo=lists1p.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1rzzAB-0006iB-0D; Thu, 25 Apr 2024 09:29:23 -0400 Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:470:142:3::10]) by lists.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1rzzA1-0006fF-Up for bug-gnulib@gnu.org; Thu, 25 Apr 2024 09:29:14 -0400 Received: from mo4-p00-ob.smtp.rzone.de ([85.215.255.24]) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1rzz9x-0003Wx-SA; Thu, 25 Apr 2024 09:29:13 -0400 ARC-Seal: i=1; a=rsa-sha256; t=1714051744; cv=none; d=strato.com; s=strato-dkim-0002; b=S7flnU3GKEon3x58Fl0Wm0onoRtpDf6jmQ2T5nn3kUpxpmh6JNM+UuiBxOL+DspfZ4 EHkHFDqYN3zu2a4QtRWlaDoKodFeM4gOo5ahiwG8dRmrmXkc/d1PhsZLAAQC6Syv+Whl rgjv68YBKVyYNb1qMV8rDCSVmyEhZwL1mKkL2KlMICdeh954i8/piN12zZeRIbW7FrGk SnZHSfFiCa5abMbZr9Gw/5AoNc7i3ALS8PJBVjptuGjqG8WgHMY1aLcEQRssDoRHvBM+ KSnh7rezTPHGMBYMcN5Vsx9klunkhkgclsQf6NvWHbYbLjcAtQgXynRsCSvmHHSQWqMw imLA== ARC-Message-Signature: i=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; t=1714051744; s=strato-dkim-0002; d=strato.com; h=References:In-Reply-To:Message-ID:Date:Subject:Cc:To:From:Cc:Date: From:Subject:Sender; bh=6942b6A7702WKRg+Ze0nsIgX//PLwwpgP8TDr53RZ/4=; b=kVgubtjrTSddNpsZltBmShSbVSUx2ptog4sRbIdcw4qwH7G3r6CLd9sLF8E/q6bihN HrWtceQ1INGFv/5k7tKL9f41a0H+Hwj+5u+Fk4IP2nyvC/mU/xypnvC7OzUfzTufQH6G JZXBBwkIuDLnjahKkTAfCCA9h8fNS2vz0Kk+bRvMzUh1fl3YWAqEtPWFGbYNYafuhcMH f+ezkkWkyBXjNpD8bACWhG3QQYQnEwzBngGfr4m57Mr7Wmet+Eiu7J2oY3z5CEZeK/8q bNkdmdldHVppRkcqaMqr1ccO+AkPhTbwPrDVyHJKElFCdNvYs0Z8ZmUthczQ8yqrp+Sb BxoA== ARC-Authentication-Results: i=1; strato.com; arc=none; dkim=none X-RZG-CLASS-ID: mo00 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; t=1714051744; s=strato-dkim-0002; d=clisp.org; h=References:In-Reply-To:Message-ID:Date:Subject:Cc:To:From:Cc:Date: From:Subject:Sender; bh=6942b6A7702WKRg+Ze0nsIgX//PLwwpgP8TDr53RZ/4=; b=QLFPmBvNIfxnPI1ppSBKU+zMXbY/nqgb3KWixRR+kX9T7Vj1O/hikofz5ilTSaApAn w5Fmn/7xBTbJSDFPm+MCss+noQ0tdBFqqf7qP/mDaKigFXWzYRF/mD+LCjivoxvGNq0l rf4FF2eFH722iXVvDg8mP8EPzN9mOgQp/vycEyaXrWPHibqvQZTelaD0EFEL0K7Ey5Ns 2pLiuQ1svPHAjX38B5CxI+u5diin1utRNPSSGa3vxKPRkt3UJNMrBmBJRgVlz9aOLhOm 8LMcsSRRxm8Tq/YVal22WeULVHLN5+j4zb++aXgsKm6in6YkhbH4T9SUa2QtCs+eNEz5 khcQ== DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=ed25519-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; t=1714051744; s=strato-dkim-0003; d=clisp.org; h=References:In-Reply-To:Message-ID:Date:Subject:Cc:To:From:Cc:Date: From:Subject:Sender; bh=6942b6A7702WKRg+Ze0nsIgX//PLwwpgP8TDr53RZ/4=; b=Jku3RTs9egfYvSa+VL2VEfHkYyX5FasyDvFAZJjfF7uw7fov5huQGXQjKMA2/06/h3 cFxp7oW9srA0xLtObzAQ== X-RZG-AUTH: ":Ln4Re0+Ic/6oZXR1YgKryK8brlshOcZlIWs+iCP5vnk6shH0WWb0LN8XZoH94zq68+3cfpOe3vCV4oRKystmTLSuNMWD8bLLMg==" Received: from nimes.localnet by smtp.strato.de (RZmta 50.5.0 AUTH) with ESMTPSA id Ndd2ca03PDT4CMz (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256 bits)) (Client did not present a certificate); Thu, 25 Apr 2024 15:29:04 +0200 (CEST) From: Bruno Haible To: Reuben Thomas , Simon Josefsson Cc: bug-gnulib , Paul Smith Subject: Re: GNULIB_REVISION Date: Thu, 25 Apr 2024 15:29:04 +0200 Message-ID: <860782103.rUtxlePDI0@nimes> In-Reply-To: <8734radfti.fsf@kaka.sjd.se> References: <8734radfti.fsf@kaka.sjd.se> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Received-SPF: none client-ip=85.215.255.24; envelope-from=bruno@clisp.org; helo=mo4-p00-ob.smtp.rzone.de X-Spam_score_int: -20 X-Spam_score: -2.1 X-Spam_bar: -- X-Spam_report: (-2.1 / 5.0 requ) BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H4=0.001, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=0.001, SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001, SPF_NONE=0.001 autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no X-Spam_action: no action X-BeenThere: bug-gnulib@gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: Gnulib discussion list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: bug-gnulib-bounces+normalperson=yhbt.net@gnu.org Sender: bug-gnulib-bounces+normalperson=yhbt.net@gnu.org Hi Simon, > you can ... via > GNULIB_REVISION pick out exactly the gnulib git revision that libpaper > needs. ... > [1] https://blog.josefsson.org/2024/04/13/reproducible-and-minimal-source= =2Donly-tarballs/ > [2] https://salsa.debian.org/auth-team/libntlm/-/tree/master/debian I see GNULIB_REVISION as an obsolete alternative to git submodules, and would therefore discourage rather than propagate its use. Currently libntlm has this in its bootstrap.conf: GNULIB_REVISION=3Ddfb71172a46ef41f8cf8ab7ca529c1dd3097a41d and GNU make has this: GNULIB_REVISION=3Dstable-202307 Both can be done with git submodules. Git submodules do support branches [1= ], and the command 'git submodule update --remote gnulib' updates the submodule while staying on the indicated branch. When using submodules, the target revision is stored in a versionable way, that both gitweb and cgit can show appropriately [2][3]. If a branch is used, it is stored in the .gitmodules file. The differences between both approaches are: - GNULIB_REVISION works only with the 'bootstrap' program. The submodules approach works also without 'bootstrap'. - For GNULIB_REVISION, the user is on their own regarding tooling, aside from 'bootstrap'. In the submodules approach, the 'git' suite provides the tooling, and many developers are familiar with it. - .tar.gz files created by the gitweb "snapshot" link, by the cgit "refs > Download" section, or the GitHub "Download ZIP" button contain an empty directory in place of the submodule, and no information about the revis= ion. Whereas they contain the file with the GNULIB_REVISION assignment. > I should write a post to debian-devel describing this pattern on > how to use gnulib in Debian packages It feels wrong to me if, in order to get meta-information about required dependencies of a package, Debian tools grep a particular file for a specif= ic string. This approach is simply too limited. The correct way, IMO, would be that 'git' provides this meta-information, either embedded in the .tar.gz generated by the web tooling, or in a separate .tar.gz. AFAICT, 'git' currently does not have this ability. Therefore we need to approach the 'git' team, in order to find a solution that scales across the whole set of software package =E2=80=94 not specific= to gnulib and not specific to 'bootstrap'. Bruno [1] https://stackoverflow.com/questions/1777854/how-can-i-specify-a-branch-= tag-when-adding-a-git-submodule [2] https://git.savannah.gnu.org/gitweb/?p=3Dcoreutils.git;a=3Dtree [3] https://git.savannah.gnu.org/cgit/coreutils.git/tree/