On 20/04/25 1:24 am, Soren Stoutner wrote:
As an upstream developer of software in Debian, my personal
recommendation is that you don’t do the Debian packaging in your
upstream repository.
I host my own git instance with my upstream code here:
https://gitweb.stoutner.com/?p=PrivacyBrowserPC.git;a=summary
I have a Salsa repository with the Debian packaging here:
https://salsa.debian.org/soren/privacybrowser
There are a lot of advantages to hosting the packaging in Salsa,
including Salsa CI.
https://salsa.debian.org/salsa-ci-team/pipeline
Which produces the following:
https://salsa.debian.org/soren/privacybrowser/-/pipelines/852997
I also use the git-buildpackage structure for my Salsa repository.
Explaining all of what that means is beyond the scope of this email,
but there is a brief explanation of how that makes my life easier
here:
https://lists.debian.org/debian-mentors/2024/09/msg00057.html
Thanks a lot for this advice. I like this separation as well, but
originally kept them together because I release standalone deb files as
well. The Debian packaging workflow that I have was designed to serve
this purpose, not uploading it to official Debian repos. Now that I have
an ITP, I'll consider moving to Salsa-based packaging if it isn't too
disruptive.
(The deb files I mentioned are for different versions of Ubuntu, built
on the corresponding ones. I'm used to the PPA workflow and Vara is
already on the Snap store, but there are users who expect it to be
delivered as deb files.)
--
Nandakumar Edamana
https://nandakumar.org
