Re: RFC: DEP-14: Recommended layout for Git packaging repositories
On November 12, 2014 7:38:25 AM CST, Matthias Urlichs <matthias@urlichs.de> wrote:
>Hi,
>
>Simon McVittie:
>> Is it the intention of this DEP to mandate the gbp-pq-like repo
>> structure, which basically forbids use of tools whose design does not
>> match that? Or is the intention to set some conventions that can be
>true
>> regardless of whether you are using a more gbp-pq-like or more
>> git-dpm-like workflow, in the knowledge that that necessarily makes
>> those conventions less strict?
>>
>IMHO there are two basic approaches which are mostly at odds with each
>other.
>
>One: Treat Upstream's git repository as Source Code; if upstream
>doesn't
>have one, pretend that it does by importing their tarballs. Use "git
>rm"
>to remove nondistributable files and generated stuff (if Upstream even
>includes them, which if they use git they hopefully don't).
>
>Apply Debian changes, packaging or not, to a packaging branch.
>debian/patches is an auto-generated packaging artefact which I as a
>maintainer can basically ignore. Other distributions may share the
>common
>repository.
>
>Call this one "integrated".
>
>
>Two: Treat Upstream tarballs as Source Code; if Upstream generates them
>from git-or-whatever, that's not our problem. Use a script to mangle
>the
>upstream tarball if it contains nondistributable files. Keep
>autogenerated
>Makefiles et al. around.
>
>Keep Debian packaging completely separate (in a different branch, or
>even
>in a diffferent archive) and use a quilt-ish workflow which treats the
>content of debian/patches as first-class citizens. There's not much
>point
>for other distros to share our packaging repository, so why plan for
>it?
>
>Let's call this one "divided".
>
>
>This DEP describes an integrated workflow.
>This DEP does not say anything about any sort of divided workflow,
>other
>than to implicitly (un?intentionally?) discourage its use by omission.
>
>I personally happen to like an integrated workflow, to the point that
>the
>first thing I do when working on anything packaged in a divided way
>I'll run a script that unwraps debian/patches into my upstream archive
>clone's debian branch.
>
>Based on a couple of reactions here, some from people who dislike
>integrated workflow at least as intensely as I don't, IMHO there's
>not much common ground between the integrated- and the divided-
>workflow adherents.
>
>Thus, please don't try to shoehorn a divided workflow into this DEP.
>Write your own.
I don't think so. This is about what Debian as a whole
Reply to: