severity 964941 normal
thanks
Hi.
I'm going to answer to all three here.
El 13/7/20 a las 4:30, Paul Wise escribió:
Source: base-files
Severity: wishlist
It would be great if you could maintain base-files in a VCS such as git
on salsa.d.o. If you would like to do that, please import the existing
source packages on snapshot.d.o into the VCS repository first.
One option for importing the old source packages is gbp:
$ git init
$ gbp import-dscs --debsnap base-files
If you have a slow network connection you can also download all the
files on lw08.debian.org, which is close to snapshot.d.o:
$ ssh lw08.debian.org -tt debsnap -v base-files
$ scp -r lw08.debian.org:source-base-files .
$ mkdir base-files
$ cd base-files
$ git init
$ gbp import-dscs ../source-base-files/*.dsc
Thanks a lot for the hints!
Yes, I'd like to do that, *some* day. While I'm still a little bit skeptical
about
putting everything in git, I agree that it would be a good thing for native
packages like this one (but *not* necessarily for the reasons I often hear).
I'm raising this to "normal" to reflect that I also want to do that. Note,
however,
that this less a bug in the package and more a request to change my workflow,
and, as I once said to Geert Stappers in another report: We can NMU a package,
but we can't NMU a workflow.
Anyway, I've started this as a test:
https://salsa.debian.org/sanvila/base-files-not-yet
It has no history yet (except yesterday's changes from 13 to 13.1),
and I believe the name speaks for itself: This is meant to be an
experiment. If it goes well and I end up being comfortable with it,
I'll add the missing bits and make it official.
I've decided to start this to share the work of usr-merge with Helmut,
but it's not an invitation to receive merge requests via salsa, and I still
want to discuss things in the BTS, by email.
I wonder if there is a salsa setting to make this sort of preferences
known to potential contributors (not something hard like disabling
merge requests completely but something like "please use the BTS").
I'm not sure if gbp will automatically understand the correct branch
structure for the package based on the stable-pu updates, but if it
does not you can use the second method and manually do the branching.
Yes, that's something that has to be done carefully.
Gioele Barabucci wrote:
https://salsa.debian.org/gioele/base-files
Thanks for the offer, but I'll try to make a better repo when I have time.
As Paul pointed out above, the point releases do not belong in the master
branch,
they should be forked from master at some point. Also, I have some tarballs
here which apparently are missing from snapshot.d.o.
Lee Garret wrote:
I'm trying to understand why /var/local/ is root:staff (#1039973), and a VCS
would really help with that.
The /var/local thing has been there for as far as I have been the maintainer
of base-files. I'd like to deprecate it, as we already did with /usr/local,
but there will always be somebody who will complain.
It would also make it easier for you to accept patches for bugs.
I think in many cases it would really not. Merely "accepting" patches is trivial
in either case. Most of the time, the real work is ensuring that nothing will
break,
and salsa does not help here. For an example, see #885414. I've tagged it as
help because there is a pending task to be done, salsa would not help to do
such task.
Thanks.
