Re: Salsa repository and first upload of tinyarray
Hello, A long time ago, I opened an ITP [1] for Kwant, a Python library for quantum physics computations that is popular with researchers in the field. Since we, the developers of Kwant, are running our own Debian package repository, there was not much pressure to migrate the packages into Debian proper, but finally as a new big Kwant release is taking shape, I would like to finish the work and phase out our own repository. (In order to be able to do that we will have to provide backports so that people running Debian stable will be able to use up-to-date Kwant, but I suppose that this should be possible.) As a first step I would like to package the library tinyarray [2]. Ondrej Novy was so kind to create a repository on salsa [3] to which I had pushed my packaging efforts. I noticed that since then Ondrej did some small modifications to the packaging. In the following, I would like to take up the discussion that got interrupted in August 2018: Ondrej Novy wrote on 22 Aug 2018: > st 22. 8. 2018 v 14:04 odesílatel Christoph Groth > napsal: > > > trusting PyPI to store the official release tarballs... > > trusting PyPi store without PGP signature is really bad idea. > > > I've also kept the full upstream history in the upstream branch, > > assuming this to be more robust and powerful. For example, this > > allows to directly cherry-pick commits into the patch queue. > > you can cherry-pick commits into pq even without full upstream history > in salsa git, using second remote. > > > Since both these practices are discouraged by the policy, I'm ready > > to give them up, but before I spend time working on it, I would like > > to ask > > I prefer to have git layout according to DPMT policy. There are > reasons for it. So, it seems to me that I should proceed as follows: * Create a new packaging repository that follows DPMT policy in the above two points. * Update it with the packaging modifications that have been done so far. * Push the new repository to salsa. Is there some recommended way to get rid of all the old branches and tags? Perhaps creating a new repository on salsa (and renaming / deleting the old one) would be good solution? Thanks Christoph [1] https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=886418 [2] https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=886628 [3] https://salsa.debian.org/python-team/modules/python-tinyarray
Re: Salsa repository and first upload of tinyarray
Hi, st 22. 8. 2018 v 14:04 odesílatel Christoph Groth napsal: > trusting PyPI to store the official release tarballs... > trusting PyPi store without PGP signature is really bad idea. I've also kept the full upstream history in the upstream branch, > assuming this to be more robust and powerful. For example, this allows > to directly cherry-pick commits into the patch queue. > you can cherry-pick commits into pq even without full upstream history in salsa git, using second remote. Since both these practices are discouraged by the policy, I'm ready to > give them up, but before I spend time working on it, I would like to ask > I prefer to have git layout according to DPMT policy. There are reasons for it. -- Best regards Ondřej Nový Email: n...@ondrej.org PGP: 3D98 3C52 EB85 980C 46A5 6090 3573 1255 9D1E 064B
Re: Salsa repository and first upload of tinyarray
> I've also kept the full upstream history in the upstream branch, > assuming this to be more robust and powerful. For example, this allows > to directly cherry-pick commits into the patch queue. you can add remote repository and cherry-pick upstream commits as you like > Since both these practices are discouraged by the policy, I'm ready to > give them up, please do > but before I spend time working on it, I would like to ask > whether tinyarray could be exempt from any one of both rules. According > with the policy, I would provide a debian/README.source file with the > above rationale and instructions. having one workflow makes it a lot easier to work on team packages, please don't add exceptions if they're not really needed -- GPG: 1D2F A898 58DA AF62 1786 2DF7 AEF6 F1A2 A745 7645
Re: Salsa repository and first upload of tinyarray
Hello, Ondrej, thank you for the quick reaction. I've read the policy. So far (for my unofficial packages) I haven't been using pristine tar tool, trusting PyPI to store the official release tarballs. The package is configured such that the pristine tars can be downloaded using the command 'gbp import-orig --uscan'. I find this approach more elegant compared to the hack that is pristine-tar. I've also kept the full upstream history in the upstream branch, assuming this to be more robust and powerful. For example, this allows to directly cherry-pick commits into the patch queue. Since both these practices are discouraged by the policy, I'm ready to give them up, but before I spend time working on it, I would like to ask whether tinyarray could be exempt from any one of both rules. According with the policy, I would provide a debian/README.source file with the above rationale and instructions. Thanks, Christoph signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Re: Salsa repository and first upload of tinyarray
Hi, st 22. 8. 2018 v 10:28 odesílatel Christoph Groth napsal: > Would someone be so kind to create a repository on salsa.debian.org for > Tinyarray and put it under group maintenance by the debian-python team? > I am cwg-guest on salsa, but so far I'm not even a Debian contributor. > Still, being the main author of Tinyarray, I commit myself to maintain > the packaging. > https://salsa.debian.org/python-team/modules/python-tinyarray enjoy :) -- Best regards Ondřej Nový Email: n...@ondrej.org PGP: 3D98 3C52 EB85 980C 46A5 6090 3573 1255 9D1E 064B Jabber: on...@njs.netlab.cz ICQ: 115-674-713 Facebook: http://www.facebook.com/onovy Tel/Cell: +420 777 963 207 Datová schránka: aypqr6c
