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

Re: Popularity of bzr-builddeb and dh-make

On Thu, Oct 18, 2012 at 09:54:27PM -0700, Russ Allbery wrote:
> > AIUI, most users of pristine-tar in git don't have the second of these
> > branches, which means the pristine-tar binary delta is done against the
> > upstream branch - so each pristine-tar blob contains all the information
> > about autogenerated files in the tarball, in a format that doesn't in
> > turn compress well in the git repository.

> Oh.  No, I'm fairly certain that you're wrong, since any user of
> git-buildpackge will have the second.  Rather, what's normally missing
> from most Git-based packaging is the *first* branch, since the
> git-buildpackage workflow was designed originally around importing
> upstream tarballs to create the second branch.

Ok.  Well, bear in mind that this is all second-hand.  I was complaining on
IRC about having to work with the designated Vcs-Git branch on a package (I
don't remember which) that didn't use pristine-tar, and multiple developers
rallied to the defense of this practice, claiming that pristine-tar caused
git repositories to rapidly balloon in size.  Perhaps one of them can speak
for themselves about what they think the issues are. :)

On Thu, Oct 18, 2012 at 10:09:17PM -0700, Russ Allbery wrote:
> Oh, wait, no, I see what you're saying: one version in the pristine-tar
> xdelta and one version in the packaging branch.  Yes, in that case, you'd
> probably store it twice, since Git isn't going to be able to figure out
> what's going on in that xdelta.  But that would require using pristine-tar
> with a branch that isn't an actual upstream branch in the git-buildpackage
> sense, which pretty much requires not using git-buildpackage (or at least
> using a very strange set of options).  While certainly nothing requires
> one to use git-buildpackage with a Git-based workflow, I suspect it's the
> most common approach.

So my own experience is that almost none of the Debian packages maintained
in git that I try to touch appear to use git-buildpackage in anything
resembling a sensible manner.  The XSF packages aren't set up for
git-buildpackage (which is reasonable since their git usage predates git-bp
and it's a comparatively large team with established practices), and random
other packages I've looked at have also shunned git-bp conventions. 
Compared to the simple consistency of Ubuntu UDD branches, I find this

On Fri, Oct 19, 2012 at 01:02:59PM +0800, Chow Loong Jin wrote:
> Actually most users of pristine-tar in git don't have the *first* of these
> branches.  They usually have an upstream branch which is synthesized
> solely from importing tarballs using git import-orig.  In other words, the
> typical practice is to avoid sharing git history with the upstream VCS,
> which in turn works out very well for git-dch, because you don't get
> unnecessary upstream changes documented in debian/changelog.

This seems utterly broken to me and optimized for the wrong priority.  I
cannot imagine why anyone would endure git's user interface and then not
even use the DVCS functionality for collaboration with upstream.

Steve Langasek                   Give me a lever long enough and a Free OS
Debian Developer                   to set it on, and I can move the world.
Ubuntu Developer                                    http://www.debian.org/
slangasek@ubuntu.com                                     vorlon@debian.org

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Reply to: