On November 12, 2014 7:38:25 AM CST, Matthias Urlichs <matth...@urlichs.de> wrote: >Hi, > >Simon McVittie: >> Is it the intention of this DEP to mandate the gbp-pq-like repo >> structure, which basically forbids use of tools whose design does not >> match that? Or is the intention to set some conventions that can be >true >> regardless of whether you are using a more gbp-pq-like or more >> git-dpm-like workflow, in the knowledge that that necessarily makes >> those conventions less strict? >> >IMHO there are two basic approaches which are mostly at odds with each >other. > >One: Treat Upstream's git repository as Source Code; if upstream >doesn't >have one, pretend that it does by importing their tarballs. Use "git >rm" >to remove nondistributable files and generated stuff (if Upstream even >includes them, which if they use git they hopefully don't). > >Apply Debian changes, packaging or not, to a packaging branch. >debian/patches is an auto-generated packaging artefact which I as a >maintainer can basically ignore. Other distributions may share the >common >repository. > >Call this one "integrated". > > >Two: Treat Upstream tarballs as Source Code; if Upstream generates them >from git-or-whatever, that's not our problem. Use a script to mangle >the >upstream tarball if it contains nondistributable files. Keep >autogenerated >Makefiles et al. around. > >Keep Debian packaging completely separate (in a different branch, or >even >in a diffferent archive) and use a quilt-ish workflow which treats the >content of debian/patches as first-class citizens. There's not much >point >for other distros to share our packaging repository, so why plan for >it? > >Let's call this one "divided". > > >This DEP describes an integrated workflow. >This DEP does not say anything about any sort of divided workflow, >other >than to implicitly (un?intentionally?) discourage its use by omission. > >I personally happen to like an integrated workflow, to the point that >the >first thing I do when working on anything packaged in a divided way >I'll run a script that unwraps debian/patches into my upstream archive >clone's debian branch. > >Based on a couple of reactions here, some from people who dislike >integrated workflow at least as intensely as I don't, IMHO there's >not much common ground between the integrated- and the divided- >workflow adherents. > >Thus, please don't try to shoehorn a divided workflow into this DEP. >Write your own.
I don't think so. This is about what Debian as a whole -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: https://lists.debian.org/87d2ca04-cfc2-4929-8f2b-73083b93c...@kitterman.com