On 2021-04-29 11:35:30, Dmitry Smirnov wrote: > On Wednesday, 28 April 2021 11:00:19 PM AEST Antoine Beaupré wrote:
[...] >> > I like simple workflow resembling the following: >> > https://salsa.debian.org/onlyjob/notes/-/wikis/bp >> >> It would be helpful to have a link to those notes (or a TL;DR:) in a >> README.source in the source package... > > Why? Just because some developers forgot how to build a Debian package > without GBP? Once that was a common knowledge and still should have been. There are many ways of building a debian packages, with or without GBP. >> Well that's what git reset is for. :) > > More needless operations and still a bloat of the git repo size... I respectfully disagree on the "needless" part. Also the "bloat" doesn't propagate to upstream refs and will be cleaned up by gc eventually. >> Hum. That's a rather long read and I'm not sure I want to get into a >> "how my way of building Debian packages is better than yours". It seems >> we all have our ways and while that's unfortunate, I guess that's life. > > I'm not asking you to read. Personally I always strive to learn how > to make things better. I've found that GBP workflow is full of problems > and that it does not really solve any problem either. Wouldn't you > like to know? I have read many, many, opinions and ideas on what the best packaging workflow is. I am moderately curious of yours, and will probably read it eventually, but if I need to read each Debian developer's paper on how to package stuff, I will have to read about 600 such essays, and while I'm curious, I lack the time. > Besides it is not just "my way of building is better" (it may or may not > suit you). It is that GBP is at least unproductive and difficult to use > with packages that "vendor" extensively, and in some occasions (e.g. > docker.io) GBP does not work at all. With several packages we only > started to make progress when we stopped using GBP's repo layout. Good to know, thanks, I will keep that in mind. >> The key point, in my mind, is that each package should explicitly >> document its own workflow clearly somewhere, and that wasn't done in >> this specific package. I looked at the existing branches from Salsa and >> they *did* have the upstream/pristine-tar/master so I assumed gbp was >> the right way to go forward. I'm happy to use another workflow. > > Make sense. Thanks. I would remove those useless branches but some may > prefer to use them so whatever... I would strongly suggest getting rid of them if you do not plan on using or maintaining them. They are bringing much confusion to the table. [...] >> I hope my small amount of work will have been useful for you! > > Did I miss any commits? No, all the work I did was in this email. [...] Anyways, it seems we're diverging into a packaging bikeshed painting contest, and I don't quite see us getting anywhere with this. You win, paint it the color you like, it's your package anyways. I was just suggesting you make it slightly more obvious what your particular workflow is, because it's not obvious to a Debian developer not used to your specific one. a. -- Blind respect for authority is the greatest enemy of truth. - Albert Einstein
