Re: Standardizing the layout of git packaging repositories
On Sun, 17 Aug 2014, Thomas Goirand wrote:
> Well, I have nothing against derivative/downstream distros, but if
> you're about to do a new DEP, please consider Debian first. In such
> case, debian/unstable makes a lot more sense than just debian/master.
> Like I wrote in another post, "master" doesn't express anything.
master does express something to people who are using git, it's the main
development trunk.
debian/unstable also doesn't follow <debian>/<codename> because unstable's
codename is sid. And I really mean that <codename> is a better choice than
<suite> (e.g. unstable, testing, stable).
That said, I don't have hard feelings against something else than
debian/master.
> > 2/ having multiple upstream/<codename> is bound to never be up-to-date
> > when I do "git checkout debian/experimental && git merge
> > debian/master", upstream/experimental will get out of sync and I
> > won't notice it because my package builds just fine
> >
> > However multiple upstream/* branches can be useful, they should
> > just match real upstream branches... so things like upstream/master,
> > upstream/4.8.x, upstream/4.9.x, etc.
>
> All of this is error prone. Using upstream tags and merging them rather
> than branches avoid troubles. I have yet to see a case where using
> upstream tags wasn't practical.
We are speaking of the cases where we use git-import-orig to build the
upstream branch(es)...
Cheers,
--
Raphaël Hertzog ◈ Debian Developer
Discover the Debian Administrator's Handbook:
→ http://debian-handbook.info/get/
Reply to: