Re: Feedback request about the Alba Upstream to Debian packaging effort
PICCA Frederic-Emmanuel writes ("Feedback request about the Alba Upstream to Debian packaging effort"):
> Since I am not at all a specialist of gitlab-ci, I would like your
> advice on the pipeline, and also on the numbering scheme propose by
> Alba. In fact all feedback which should smooth the upstream to debian
> flow.
...
> [5] https://people.debian.org/~picca/CollabPkg-v3.pdf
I didn't have a massive amount of time to review this in detail, but
it sounds cool. I looked at the slides in the pdf [5] above.
(Shame there isn't a technical report...)
I reviewed the version number proposal and it seems sound to me.
I have some observations:
You probably want to keep the delta between the upstream and the
debianised branch as small as possible.
On build systems and debian/ruless: if (i) you can get as much of your
upstream build system looking as standard as possible (ii) you can get
as much of the rest supported by dh as possible, then your
debian/rules files could possibly be very small indeed.
debian/changelog is a bit of a pain and you will have to write code to
generate it. [gbp-]dch can be helpful.
Ideally you would treat debian/control as an output file: generate it
entirely from upstream stuff, using some tool, and commit the result
as a committed-artefact to the debianised branch.
Your debianisation tool becomes part of the source code for your
packages. You need to publish it in your repository, track the
version used, etc. So it probably needs to be debianised. I think
you need to mention it in Built-Using or something similar.
Finally, and VERY CONTROVERSIALLY: consider whether you want to bother
with source packages. You could just use git branches instead.
Source packages are a pain.
Good luck and have fun!
Ian.
--
Ian Jackson <ijackson@chiark.greenend.org.uk> These opinions are my own.
If I emailed you from an address @fyvzl.net or @evade.org.uk, that is
a private address which bypasses my fierce spamfilter.
Reply to: