Re: 4.03.0 released to experimental
On Mon, Nov 07, 2016 at 07:45:00PM +0000, Ximin Luo wrote:
> > this naming schema makes sense, but it is not the one we have agreed on
> > in the debian-ocaml-maint team. So far we have been using for all
> > packages branches master and upstream for sid, and for all other
> > distributions <distro>/master and <distro>/upstream.
> >
> > In my opinion it does not really matter which one we use, but it would
> > be helpful to use the same naming schema for all packages.
> >
>
> Ah, I didn't realise it was part of an agreed standard.
Well, we discussed this on the mailing list many years ago, but
apparently it didn't even make it into the ocaml packaging reference
manual.
> What I did was according to DEP-14 as josch pointed out - thanks, I didn't know about this before.
If there is a generally accepted standard in debian then it would
probably make more sense when we (the ocaml team) move to that standard.
> However, I think that packages for which we *don't* need to track multiple "stable" branches, can remain in a simple {master, upstream, pristine-tar} setup. We only have a few of the others:
It may always happen that we want to upload a package to experimental, that
we have to patch a version of a package released into stable, or that we
want to backport stuff.
> I just noticed the dom-git-checkout script though. From the manpage, it only seems to handle the simple {master, upstream, pristine-tar} repos. I'm not sure how it handles the more complex types.
It also works (at least) with the <distrib>/{master,upstream} branches.
> I'm also perfectly happy to revert my changes to the ocaml git repo, now that I see it is part of an established pattern. (I'd also rename debian/stretch -> stretch/debian to be consistent.) But the DEP-14 pattern is more widely adopted now and probably would help newer contributors - one less thing to learn.
I would suggest to keep the layout you have chosen, at least for the
moment. We should later decide for the whole ocaml group whether we
want to migrate to the DEP14 layout.
It is much more important that the experimental and sid branches are
seperated, as Mehdi has pointed out.
Cheers -Ralf.
Reply to: