[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: Clarification on the Origin: field in the Patch Tagging Guidelines?



Hi there!

On Fri, 15 Jun 2012 15:39:35 +0200, Theodore Ts'o wrote:
> From reading the DEP-3, it mentions the use of the Commit: identifier,
> but doesn't give any examples of how this would be done.  Would
> something like this be acceptable instead?
>
> Origin: upstream, Commit:8f00911a21

This is how I interpreted DEP-3 in the Bacula package, with the
difference of using a lowercase "commit" (`git format-patch` outputs
like this) and the full commit ID (if I should less, I would use 7
digits given that `git describe` outputs like this):

  <http://anonscm.debian.org/gitweb/?p=pkg-bacula/bacula.git;a=blob;f=debian/patches/upstream-1623_debian-591293___file_jpfid_idx.patch;h=3434554f7e56822d5c0701cdf40ae23ff3233ed9;hb=97abfff23888b2a58f1a68f330b53b176ec39b48>
  <http://anonscm.debian.org/gitweb/?p=pkg-bacula/bacula.git;a=blob;f=debian/patches/upstream___Add-missing-bwild-bregex-man8-pages.patch;h=4b7b9abebfc845293f987863e050f6de936520ff;hb=97abfff23888b2a58f1a68f330b53b176ec39b48>

The problem I found is when the patch includes two different upstream
commits, see:

  <http://anonscm.debian.org/gitweb/?p=pkg-bacula/bacula.git;a=blob;f=debian/patches/fix-binutils-gold-linking.patch;h=15bfc2b25241d316bc588048b6abe599f32fdddd;hb=HEAD>

> I assume as long as there is clear documentation in where to find the
> canonical upstream repository (perhaps in debian/README.source or
> debian/copyright) this would be considered acceptable?

At least for Bacula it is clear where the canonical upstream repository
is.  And it should be clear also for those project using Git where the
Debian package is directly pulling from upstream (so everything is like
upstream except for the 'debian' branch).

Thx, bye,
Gismo / Luca

Attachment: pgpG85B7FV2Ny.pgp
Description: PGP signature


Reply to: