On Sun, Aug 17, 2014 at 07:57:55PM +0000, Sune Vuorela wrote: > On 2014-08-16, Raphael Hertzog <hertzog@debian.org> wrote: > > I believe that most of the current workflows do respect this rule (except > > for the case where you only store the debian directory). > I do think that this is quite common, and my preferred way of doing > things. It is easy for newcomers to handle, easy for me to handle, no > need to learn a lot of git specific tools or helpers, you can mostly > ignore git if you want to. > I've a couple of times tried to get myself to actually learn various of > these newfangled tools like git-buildpackaeg and such, and each time I > end up feeling they get much more in my way that they actually help me. > So, if I can, I try my bestest to stick with a debian-only git > repository for the debian packaging. It just works. and is simple. It is not simple at all, it gives you an on-disk directory structure which is completely inconsistent with how the base packaging tools work and it forces an artificial separation between "package" and "upstream source". Developers are obviously free to maintain their packages in whatever form they want, but when it comes to promoting /best practices/, we should not be settling for the least common denominator across all the crazy things that maintainers do today. -- 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