On Jan 23, 2017, at 02:41 AM, Scott Kitterman wrote:
>Which would be horrible. single-debian-patch means that to understand the
>upstream modifications, access to the packaging VCS is required. I think
>that would be a huge step backwards.
Agreed.
-Barry
On January 22, 2017 8:11:26 PM EST, Nikolaus Rath wrote:
>On Jan 23 2017, Brian May wrote:
>[ Convert from git-dpm to gbp ]
>> Or would dgit be a better option? I confuse I don't really understand
>> dgit.
>
>dgit can be used with both git-dpm and gbp. Moving to dgit-only would
>mean to use a s
On Jan 23 2017, Brian May wrote:
> I don't particular care what we move to, however it seems to me that we
> really should be dropping git-dpm.
I think git-dpm works very nice as long as the package doesn't get too
complex. I think it would be overreaction to convert all packages, just
because gi
On Jan 23 2017, Brian May wrote:
[ Convert from git-dpm to gbp ]
> Or would dgit be a better option? I confuse I don't really understand
> dgit.
dgit can be used with both git-dpm and gbp. Moving to dgit-only would
mean to use a single-debian-patch.
Best,
-Nikolaus
--
GPG encrypted emails pref
Barry Warsaw writes:
> We've talked about eventually dropping git-dpm and just using gbp (with gbp-pq
> for patch management).
There are some packages (I won't mention names) that have already
started doing this.
Would it be worth creating a concrete proposal to phase out usage of
git-dpm in fa
5 matches
Mail list logo
