Bug#927076: xournalpp packaging in Debian
> Okay, I used a git snapshot for the version and tarball, and all seems well. Excellent! that's a very good news. It's impressive to see all tests to pass from the first attempt. lintian finds a small issue in the debian/copyright file, but that's all that I see. https://salsa.debian.org/debian/xournalpp/-/jobs/1742060#L32 Thanks, Mt
Bug#927076: xournalpp packaging in Debian
Okay, I used a git snapshot for the version and tarball, and all seems well.
Bug#927076: xournalpp packaging in Debian
The reason I'm tracking is because I actually use the generated packages. But I'm totally unfamiliar with the salsa continuous integration stuff. Wouldn't mind learning though. Happy to change workflow, maybe do development on a different branch? Or, could make snapshot upstream releases 1.0.20+git.DATE.N.ID, or 1.1.0~git.DATE.N.ID, which are based on particular upstream commit IDs and pushed into pristine-tar.
Bug#927076: xournalpp packaging in Debian
Thanks, it helps the salsa pipeline. But it fails right after, because the git content is too different from the tarball of 1.0.20... I guess there is no easy way to make this pipeline work before the release of 1.1.0. I tend to think that our issues come from the remote tracking of upstream's git in the debian one. In the other packages I'm involved in, we only use `gbp import-orig` to get new upstream content, while keeping the pristine-tar branch in sync. I understand that the situation is very specific for xournalpp, as you wanted to get ready for the upcoming release, but maybe in the future it'd be easier to stick to the classical git-buildpackage workflow? That being said, if you have another workflow that work (on salsa also), I'd be glad to learn new tricks ;) I'm not very well connected to the xournal world. Do you have any hint of when the next release will occur? Thx, Mt
Bug#927076: xournalpp packaging in Debian
Done. I reverted to 1.0.20 but left debian/watch untouched, so uscan alerts about 1.0.20-hotfix being available. If that's a problem I can edit the watch file, just let me know; I kind of enjoy tweaking them, as it happens. Guess now we wait for the actual 1.1.0 release.
Bug#927076: xournalpp packaging in Debian
I fully agree for not uploading before 1.1.0, so I'd go for the easiest way to please uscan: probably not -hotfix. I prefer not to mess with uscan files, as I confess to I kinda dislike this formalism. But if you insist, I can do. Mt -- It is easier to port a shell than a shell script. -- Larry Wall signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Bug#927076: xournalpp packaging in Debian: how can we help?
Sure, can change it to 1.0.20-hotfix-1 or can edit debian/watch to skip the -hotfix tag and change it to 1.0.20-1. Or use 1.0.20-1 and let uscan whine about 1.0.20-hotfix. Given the changes all around, I don't think we want to actually push into Debian until 1.1.0 is released anyway. So whether the changes are representable or enormous or whatever doesn't really matter. What do you think: -hotfix or not -hotfix? Cheers, --Barak.
Bug#927076: xournalpp packaging in Debian: how can we help?
Le Mon, Jun 28, 2021 at 12:52:02AM +0100, Barak A. Pearlmutter a écrit : > There is a pristine-tar branch on both salsa and my GitHub fork repo I *think* that the issue comes from uscan: | W: Unable to locate package xournalpp | Trying uscan --download --download-current-version ... | uscan warn: In debian/watch no matching hrefs for version 1.1.0 in watch line | https://github.com/xournalpp/xournalpp/tags (?:.*?/)(?:[-_]?(\d[\-+\.:\~\da-zA-Z]*))(?i)(?:\.(?:tar\.xz|tar\.bz2|tar\.gz|zip|tgz|tbz|txz)) | Could not find any location for xournalpp_1.1.0.orig.tar.* Maybe we should downgrade the entry in debian/changelog to an already released version such as 1.0 to please uscan? Thanks, Mt. -- J'ai un COT. C'est comme un TOC, mais dans l'ordre comme il faut. I have a CDO. It's like OCD, but in alphabetical order as it should be. signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Bug#927076: xournalpp packaging in Debian: how can we help?
There is a pristine-tar branch on both salsa and my GitHub fork repo barak/...
Bug#927076: xournalpp packaging in Debian: how can we help?
Ok, the pipeline is launched. Thanks for the invitation ;) I would not say that I'm very involved, actually. If I can help, I'm glad, but if I don't have to, I'm happy :) If you have difficulties with something, drop me an email. As for the pipeline, it failed, because it seems that there is no pristine-tar branch in the git. I thought that you were using git-buildpackage, but maybe I'm wrong? Mt
Bug#927076: xournalpp packaging in Debian: how can we help?
Sure, always happy for help. Please do! Would you like to take the package, or co-maintain, team-maintain, whatever it's called nowadays? I was using it for teaching, whereas you seem much more involved.
Bug#927076: xournalpp packaging in Debian: how can we help?
Thanks for the update (and for all the work). Is it OK if I change what needs to be so that the package gets automatically built on salsa's CI, with lintian and everything launched on it? (I'm a DD so I have the technical right to do so, but I'm asking for your permission anyway) Thanks, Mt.
Bug#927076: xournalpp packaging in Debian: how can we help?
Yeah, I think right now it's in good shape. I'm waiting for an official upstream release, at which point I'll upload. Since it's not in Debian right now, there's no reason to hold off until after the Debian release. (If there were I'd upload to Debian/experimental.) I've been tracking the upstream repo, so I should be able to just hit the button. Cheers, --Barak.
Bug#927076: xournalpp packaging in Debian: how can we help?
Hello Barak, I'm glad to see that you are still progressing in the packaging of xournalpp. Last year, you said that the main show stopper was the svg licenses, that were unclear. But if I understand correctly, you fixed it too with the following commit. https://salsa.debian.org/debian/xournalpp/-/commit/c58bef48700738fc05e48bc1d4f61cf3830f708c Now, the debian/copyright file looks good to me. Am I right? Is there anything else that should be done, or are we only waiting for the Debian release before you can upload this package to unstable? How could we help? I have another question about the version of xournalpp that you are packaging. It seems to me that you are tracking upstream master, right? Wouldn't it be preferable to track released versions instead? I'm unsure here as I did not dig into upstream releasing policy, so my first feeling may well be wrong. Finally, would you mind if I change what should be on the repo to activate the automatic build pipelines from https://salsa.debian.org/salsa-ci-team/pipeline ? That would give us the packages as build artefact, so that I can use your version of the package without building locally ;) Thanks for all the good job done here, Mt. -- The great thing about TCP jokes is that you always get them. signature.asc Description: PGP signature
