Re: git vs dfsg tarballs

[Ian Jackson <ijackson@chiark.greenend.org.uk>]

Enrico Weigelt, metux IT consult writes ("git vs dfsg tarballs"):
> Can we agree on some auomatically reproducable (and inversable)
> transformation process from orig to dfsg tree

Clearly the transformation on the *tree* can't be reversible because
in the usual case it is deleting things.  So you'll need the history.
With most gitish workflows, the corresponding pre-dfsg upstream
*commit* can be found with `git-merge-base', assuming you have some
uploaded (or pushed) Debian commit and a suitable upstream branch.

> My preferred way (except for rare cases where upstream history is
> extremely huge - like mozilla stuff) would be just branching at the
> upstream's release tag and adding commits for removing the non-dfsg
> files ontop of that. From that branching the debianized branch,
> where all patches are directly applied in git.

I think that most of the workflows recommended in these manpages

  https://manpages.debian.org/stretch-backports/dgit/dgit-maint-gbp.7.en.html
  https://manpages.debian.org/stretch-backports/dgit/dgit-maint-merge.7.en.html
  https://manpages.debian.org/stretch-backports/dgit/dgit-maint-debrebase.7.en.html

ought to have the property I describe above, which I think is
sufficient for you ?

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.