Re: RFC: DEP-14: Recommended layout for Git packaging repositories
On Wed, 12 Nov 2014, Mathieu Parent wrote:
> A paragraph about repacked upstream is needed. A lot of packages are
> currently stripped for minified JS, non-free additions, included RFCs,
> ... What would the upstream/1.x branch be then? Maybe add an
> upstream/1.x+debian branch?
Yeah, that was another open question I had.
There's no clear conventions about how to handle the removal of files from
It looks like some people are using uscan/mk-origtaz to drop non-DFSG
files from the downloaded .tar.gz (via Files-Excluded in debian/copyright)
and then the "upstream" branch is directly the DFSG clean version.
But other persons are using "dfsg" branches where they handle the removal
of the problematic files and they merge those branches. So their process
- update the dfsg branch by merging the upstream release
- merge the dfsg branch in the debian packaging branch
There are probably other workflows.
I'm not sure what's best. But given that the whole "upstream" namespaces
is a packaging artifact, it would seem natural that those branches contain
the upstream sources as we define them, i.e. with the non-free files already
I would thus limit ourselves to stating that and not having any specific
recommendations on how people should get rid of the files.
Does that sound reasonable?
> Also, the vendor/* branches heads should be at a descendent commit of
> the corresponding upstream branch, diffing only by the debian dir.
Does that need to be explicitly stated?
Raphaël Hertzog ◈ Debian Developer
Support Debian LTS: http://www.freexian.com/services/debian-lts.html
Learn to master Debian: http://debian-handbook.info/get/