Re: Standardizing the layout of git packaging repositories
On Sat, 16 Aug 2014, Thomas Goirand wrote:
> Why would you tag the upstream release? I mean, it's upstream's job to
Yeah, if upstream uses git at least it should NOT be done by
If not, it depends.
> > - shall we standardize the "pristine-tar" branch?
> As in, always use pristine-tar? No!
ACK. Vendor lock-in.
> Yes. Producing orig.tar.xz out of upstream tag should be industrialized,
> and written in "some" tools, which we would all be using. I currently
> do: ./debian/rules gen-orig-xz, but that shouldn't be specific to my own
Then please read DevRef §18.104.22.168 and use debian/rules get-orig-source
instead. It also specifies how the top-level directory of the origtgz
shall be named if you repackage.
As for a non-repackaged origtgz… use upstream’s if at all possible.
«MyISAM tables -will- get corrupted eventually. This is a fact of life. »
“mysql is about as much database as ms access” – “MSSQL at least descends
from a database” “it's a rebranded SyBase” “MySQL however was born from a
flatfile and went downhill from there” – “at least jetDB doesn’t claim to
be a database” ‣‣‣ Please, http://deb.li/mysql and MariaDB, finally die!