[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: Best practices for Debian developers who are also upstreams?



Hello,

On Sun 09 Feb 2020 at 10:57PM +02, Otto Kekäläinen wrote:

> Most interesting was perhaps Seans git-remote-gcrypt. You even have a
> rpm spec file included which helps illustrate this is a true upstream
> and not a fully native Debian package.
>
> There does not seem to be any automation around release numbering —
> currently the repo tags, debian/changelog and redhat spec file all
> bumped manually and independently.
> https://github.com/spwhitton/git-remote-gcrypt/commit/069f6ea33149fbaa8bd83423b7a7b591fcfed43b

Indeed.  If the package was more active I would implement some script
which would bump all the versions, which could be run right after
releasing.

> - Build .deb directly at upstream for every upstream commit: allow
> upstream developers to notice if they break Debian packaging to the
> level that it stops building. Upstream PRs (or MRs) should not be
> accepted if they make changes without considering if they break .deb
> (or .rpm if that is also included in the upstream repository).
> Effectively this requires that upstream git master branch has a
> debian/ directory.
>
> - Since there will be a debian/ directory, upstream might as well run
> full Debian QA on every commit. This will help detect if upstream
> developes make grave mistakes, like try to run curl/git fetches
> duringthe build stage, introduce library symbols in a wrong way or
> embed in the build something that stops from being a reproducible
> build anymore. Lintian even complains about spelling mistakes. Such QA
> items are not Debian specific – all code everywhere should be without
> spelling mistakes, all programs should stay reproducible if they now
> are so etc.

Right.  My sbuild-prerelease alias could be used in your CI to do this.

-- 
Sean Whitton

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: PGP signature


Reply to: