Re: a few quick questions on gbp pq workflow

On 08/07/2017 12:20 AM, Jeremy Stanley wrote: > Thomas references the AUTHORS and ChangeLog files (which embed > important metadata from the revision control system into the release > tarball, far from useless in my opinion); but taking the > nova-15.0.0.tar.gz release for example, those two files

Re: a few quick questions on gbp pq workflow

On 08/06/2017 09:15 PM, Jeremy Stanley wrote: > On 2017-08-06 20:00:59 +0100 (+0100), Ghislain Vaillant wrote: > [...] >> You'd still have to clean the pre-built files, since they would be >> overwritten by the build system and therefore dpkg-buildpackage >> would complain if you run the build

Re: a few quick questions on gbp pq workflow

On 08/06/2017 05:37 PM, Jeremy Stanley wrote: > On 2017-08-06 10:44:36 -0400 (-0400), Allison Randal wrote: >> The OpenStack packaging team has been sprinting at DebCamp, and >> we're finally ready to move all general Python dependencies for >> OpenStack over to DPMT. (We'll keep maintaining them,

Re: a few quick questions on gbp pq workflow

On August 7, 2017 5:37:34 PM EDT, Diane Trout wrote: > >> >> Why would you need to repack a tarball just because it contains >> prebuilt docs (non-DFSG-free licensed documentation aside)? I'm all > >I've occasionally repacked a tarball because upstream included minified >jquery

Re: a few quick questions on gbp pq workflow

> > Why would you need to repack a tarball just because it contains > prebuilt docs (non-DFSG-free licensed documentation aside)? I'm all I've occasionally repacked a tarball because upstream included minified jquery or mathjax. Diane signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed

Re: a few quick questions on gbp pq workflow

On Aug 6, 2017, at 11:11, Ondrej Novy wrote: > It's not always possible/simple/nice to use sdist, because it contains > prebuild docs. And I don't like to do +dfsg rebuild just for removing docs. > Sometimes sdists doesn't contain tests. I will also generally prefer the PyPI

Re: a few quick questions on gbp pq workflow

On Sun, Aug 6, 2017 at 2:53 PM, Jeremy Stanley wrote: > Why would you need to repack a tarball just because it contains > prebuilt docs (non-DFSG-free licensed documentation aside)? I'd suggest removing prebuilt files should happen in both the upstream VCS and tarballs, failing that then at

Re: a few quick questions on gbp pq workflow

On August 6, 2017 5:24:59 PM EDT, Ondrej Novy wrote: >Hi, > >2017-08-06 14:53 GMT-04:00 Jeremy Stanley : > >> Why would you need to repack a tarball just because it contains >> prebuilt docs (non-DFSG-free licensed documentation aside)? I'm all >> > >Lintian

Re: a few quick questions on gbp pq workflow

Allison Randal writes: > - Will DPMT be following DEP-14 and using the branch name debian/master > instead of master? I believe so. Although from memory the conversion instructions are incomplete on how to change the default branch to debian/master, which is required before

Re: a few quick questions on gbp pq workflow

Hi, 2017-08-06 14:53 GMT-04:00 Jeremy Stanley : > Why would you need to repack a tarball just because it contains > prebuilt docs (non-DFSG-free licensed documentation aside)? I'm all > Lintian considers this as "bug": https://lintian.debian.

Re: a few quick questions on gbp pq workflow

On 2017-08-06 20:00:59 +0100 (+0100), Ghislain Vaillant wrote: [...] > You'd still have to clean the pre-built files, since they would be > overwritten by the build system and therefore dpkg-buildpackage > would complain if you run the build twice. > > So, you might as well just exclude them from

Re: a few quick questions on gbp pq workflow

On 06/08/17 19:56, Scott Kitterman wrote: Generally when I find shortcomings in the tarball, I file bugs upstream. In general, I've found upstream developers to be accepting of such changes. Same here. There's no need to DFSG the tarball if you can rebuild the docs. The best way to

Re: a few quick questions on gbp pq workflow

On 06/08/17 19:53, Jeremy Stanley wrote: Why would you need to repack a tarball just because it contains prebuilt docs (non-DFSG-free licensed documentation aside)? I'm all for rebuilding those at deb build time just to be sure you have the right deps packaged too, but if the ones in the tarball

Re: a few quick questions on gbp pq workflow

On August 6, 2017 2:11:13 PM EDT, Ondrej Novy wrote: >Hi, > >2017-08-06 12:26 GMT-04:00 Scott Kitterman : >> >> I don't work on the OpenStack packages, but I do maintain a >reasonable >> number of Python packages. I always work from the released tarball.

Re: a few quick questions on gbp pq workflow

On 2017-08-06 14:11:13 -0400 (-0400), Ondrej Novy wrote: > It's not always possible/simple/nice to use sdist, because it contains > prebuild docs. And I don't like to do +dfsg rebuild just for removing docs. > Sometimes sdists doesn't contain tests. > > So my preference is: > >- use sdist if

Re: a few quick questions on gbp pq workflow

Hi, 2017-08-06 12:26 GMT-04:00 Scott Kitterman : > > I don't work on the OpenStack packages, but I do maintain a reasonable > number of Python packages. I always work from the released tarball. I > haven't added the keys yet to verify all my packages, but am gradually >

Re: a few quick questions on gbp pq workflow

On August 6, 2017 11:37:51 AM EDT, Jeremy Stanley wrote: >On 2017-08-06 10:44:36 -0400 (-0400), Allison Randal wrote: >> The OpenStack packaging team has been sprinting at DebCamp, and >> we're finally ready to move all general Python dependencies for >> OpenStack over to

Re: a few quick questions on gbp pq workflow

On 2017-08-06 10:44:36 -0400 (-0400), Allison Randal wrote: > The OpenStack packaging team has been sprinting at DebCamp, and > we're finally ready to move all general Python dependencies for > OpenStack over to DPMT. (We'll keep maintaining them, just within > DPMT using the DPMT workflow.) > >