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

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
the packager.

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
> packages.

Then please read DevRef § 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!

Reply to: