On Thu, Apr 04, 2013 at 08:21:44PM +0100, Jonathan Dowland wrote: > > otherwise the workflow becomes clumsier > Just to be clear, did you read Russ' blog - are you referring to the merge trick he uses in his workflow for this purpose? I've even owned the bug report that led to the Russ's approach being added to gbp. On Thu, Apr 04, 2013 at 12:21:41PM -0700, Russ Allbery wrote: > >> Since the Debian archive needs the tarballs *anyway*, the small amount > >> of additional work required to use the upstream release tarballs so > >> that we're obviously consistent seems worth it. > > > FSVO small. > > > It's easy when the tarball is file-to-file identical with the release > > tag, otherwise the workflow becomes clumsier for a benefit which is not > > obvious (except for a general opinion that some unknown amount of people > > benefit from this). > > Please see my blog post cited at the start of this thread. There is > absolutely no need for the release tarball to be file-to-file identical > with the release tag for this to be easy; it's trivial regardless of how > different the tarball is from the release tag unless it's pathologically > different (uses a completely different file layout, for example). I use this approach and I find it less handy than just merging the upstream tags or just importing the upstream tarballs. It also produces repos with more complicated history. -- WBR, wRAR
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature