Re: git vs dfsg tarballs
Enrico Weigelt, metux IT consult writes ("Re: git vs dfsg tarballs"):
> On 19.11.18 13:52, Ian Jackson wrote:
> > 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
> Yet complicated for me (especially regarding automating/CI).
I'm sorry, I think you have misunderstood my point. I wasn't
suggesting that *you* should follow the recommendations in those
I am saying that for packages whose Debian maintainer follow those
recommendations, much of what you want would be straightforward - or,
anyway a lot easier. So I was plugging my recommendations.
I was also inviting comment from you as a downstream, if there are
ways recommendations (and tools such as dgit) could be improved.
> Here're some examples on how my deb branches look like:
Not sure what you mean by `your deb branches', but looking at what
Debian gives you:
> * canonical ref names
dgit (dgit clone, dgit fetch) will give you this, regardless of the
> * always based on the corresponding upstream's release tag
A maintainer who uses dgit and follows the recommendations in the
dgit-maint-*(7) manpages will give you this.
So I think you should be plugging dgit to maintainers, like I am :-).
> * changes directly as git commits - no text-based patches whatsoever
dgit will pretty much give you this, regardless of the maintainer's
behavior, because it will automatically convert the `text based
patches' into git commits so the git commits are there.
> * generic changes below the deb-specific ones
Again, dgit will give you this.
> I'm currently helping myself w/ lots of mappings and import scripts,
> but I'd like to get rid of maintaining all these little pieces.
One of dgit's objectives is to make the work of downstreams easier.
Ian Jackson <email@example.com> 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.