Hi, Andreas. Andreas Tille <andr...@an3as.eu> writes:
> since Liubov Chuprikova added autopkgtest to ncbi-tools6 I tried to > build the package but failed. The repository contains upstream files > that are different from the upstream tarball and it is not clear to me > how this package should be build at all with this setup. This setup historically worked fine, just didn't accommodate added (or changed) *binary* files (as introduced by this test). > Moreover it seems to be the only package of Debian Med team that is > not using source/format 3.0 (quilt) which should be used according to > our policy[1] unless a different format brings a specific advantage. I must have missed that detail. My personal preference has long been to treat Debian source trees as ordinary branches of the corresponding upstream codebases, since I find this arrangement more natural and in many respects more straightforward to work with than a patch system, even with the help of quilt. I'm pushing changes that formally switch to 3.0 (quilt) and inform dpkg-source that it has a (specific) binary file to accommodate. I've declared single-debian-patch mode for now, though, since I don't have time to split out individual patches at the moment. In the long term, how do you feel about gbp-pq(1) as a compromise between our preferred approaches? BTW, I see that the repository has moved to Salsa (thanks!) Are you planning to update the Vcs-* fields accordingly? -- Aaron M. Ucko, KB1CJC (amu at alum.mit.edu, ucko at debian.org) http://www.mit.edu/~amu/ | http://stuff.mit.edu/cgi/finger/?a...@monk.mit.edu
