Le 11/04/16 à 16:15, Scott Kitterman a écrit : > On Friday, November 04, 2016 10:47:32 AM Barry Warsaw wrote: >> On Nov 03, 2016, at 08:36 PM, Julien Muchembled wrote: >>> Not sure if all python-modules repositories are like persistent, but for >>> me, mixing Debian work with imported tarballs in the same branch is >>> terrible. When possible, I prefer to fork the upstream repository, >>> otherwise no upstream source at all. >> >> You're not alone, but I think that's still a minority opinion in the team. >> Our packages are so tightly integrated with PyPI, and source tarballs are >> such an ingrained aspect of that service, that a pristine-tar based >> approach for team packages still makes sense, IMHO. > > You can integrate a new upstream directly from an upstream git repository > with > git-dpm if that's what makes sense for a particular upstream.
That's tempting and I was about to ask how, but I doubt the team would accept. The Zope foundation already releases everything on PyPI and the policy says: « Complete upstream git history should be avoided in the upstream branch. [...] When you must (not want to) deviate, » So I plan to create only 3 new packages in DPMT: - python-btrees - python-zc.customdoctests - zodbpickle Packages maintained by the Debian/Ubuntu Zope Team, like zodb, will stay where there are (since I prefer git-svn+source-less), and I'll also create 'zeo' there (because it depends on zodb). https://wiki.debian.org/Python/GitPackaging: > Q: Source-full or source-less branches? A: Source-full branches please! There > are lots of good reasons for this, including the ability to easily diff > between upstream versions, [...] Such source-full tree is unusable for me. I need git-blame too and auto-generated files are annoying. Julien