On 04.09.20 11:35, Andreas Tille wrote: > On Thu, Sep 03, 2020 at 10:11:49PM +0200, Steffen Möller wrote: >> https://salsa.debian.org/med-team/nanostat >> >> Please kindly give it a spin. PyTorch etc is more important, no need to >> stress it as a "no-more-running-Sprint"-thingy, we shall add it once it >> is accepted, anyway. > Can you please make it team maintained? Done. > To my experience the way > I described how to do a package at > > > https://salsa.debian.org/med-team/community/MoM/-/wikis/home#quickstart-with-debian-med-package-template%22 > > is the most time efficient way and ensures that your package follows the > team policy. It would be great if you would prefer this over dh-make > which in the end creates more work (or please tell my what is missing in > our template in case you consider this wrong).
In my experience, packaging using dh_make is mostly reduced to using "rm" and "mv" with selected edits for which I exactly know where to look. There is nothing wrong with the template, and I fix it where it is (the last edit is mine on https://salsa.debian.org/med-team/community/package_template/-/tree/master/debian :o) ) . Just, when there is a new empty project, my fingers say "dh_make". Can I have a dh_make_team? But hey, I have adopted your routine-update, inject-into-salsa-git and itp_from_debian_dir scripts and am a huge fan!!! > BTW, dh-make also adds the perfectly redundant "debian uupdate" to the > watch file. Routine-update does not work properly with this. The > easiest solution is to simply not use this redundant strings (or not use > dh-make at all as I'd suggest for years). The possibly better solution > would be to fix routine-update but I will not spent my time into it > since for me that problem is not visible in the packages I'm touching. I think we should improve dh_make to prepare for team maintenance. And routine-update to gain extra compatibility. Steffen
