Re: [PATCH 1/3] gnu: Add utfcpp.

[Alex Kost]

Leo Famulari (2016-05-09 06:31 +0300) wrote:

> On Sun, May 08, 2016 at 09:43:28AM -0500, Alex Griffin wrote:
>> On Sun, May 8, 2016, at 03:13 AM, Alex Kost wrote:
>> > I don't know whether we have an idiomatic way to convert "2.3.4" into
>> > "2_3_4", but I would just use a tarball from github:
>>
>> The project was just migrated to GitHub and hasn't had a new release
>> since then, so I'm using the sourceforge zip file because that's what
>> other projects have downloaded and used. Also I try to avoid the
>> automatically-generated GitHub archives because they're prone to change
>> hashes (although I see I forgot about that in the ledger package.)
>
> I haven't noticed a GitHub tarball change its content unexpectedly.
>
> However, I have noticed that for projects who distribute tarballs from
> both GitHub and another site, the tarballs are often different. The
> project distributes the result of something like `make dist` on the
> other site, while GitHub automatically generates a snapshot of the
> tagged commit.

"make dist" creates a real release and it is surely preferred
over a simple repo snapshot.  But this is not the case.

> So, if utfcpp's GitHub and SourceForge tarballs are different, that
> could be the reason, and also a reason to use the SourceForge
> distribution.

No it's not the reason, this utfcpp doesn't even use any build system,
it consists of several files that are not built in any way.  And
actually tarball from github has more files (samples and tests, but it
doesn't matter).

-- 
Alex