Re: Survey: git packaging practices / repository format

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

Hi.  Thanks for your contributions which I am trying to capture, but I
don't think I fully understand them.

David Bremner writes ("Re: Survey: git packaging practices / repository format"):
> With modified upstream files in the main branch, plus debian/*, but
> usually no d/patches I use a seperate (manually
> rebased) branch for patches, and export those at dsc creation time using
> a gitpkg hook

Is this the same setup as described by Simon McVittie for xorg
packages (eg, mesa) ?

If not I don't understand, because you say both that the upstream
files are modified in your main branch, and that there are patches in
d/patches but that is in a separate branch.  Are the same changes
represented twice, then, on two git branches ?

You say "a gitpkg hook".  Is the hook script in Debian or is it ad
hoc ?  My table would perhaps want to name it.

> With unmodified upstream files in the main branch, plus debian/*, but
> usually no d/patches, I use git-debcherry to generate a quilt series at
> dsc build time.

I think I understand this one a bit better than the one above.[1]
What constraints are there on the main branch, for this to work ?

Thanks,
Ian.

[1] git-debcherry solves a very similar problem to dgit's quilt
linearisation, which is used for example by dgit to construct `3.0
(quilt)' patches out of the commits made by an NMUer.

And I think git-debrebase branches are always suitable for use with
git-debcherry, but git-debrebase knows how to make patches itself so
you don't need git-debcherry then.)

-- 
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.