On Sun, Oct 10, 2021 at 09:40:54PM +0000, Joshua Peisach wrote: > This doesn't really matter; the above means that we will have to build > on weekly tags rather than the current '0.2.4' tag. Here is the issue. > uscan and gbp aren't happy with the tag because by all means, it isn't a > number. Not being a number isn't a problem though? > It is now that I turned to how other people package, such as how the > kernel team packages linux, and how the MATE team packages things, and > other ways of getting the source compared to the way I am pretty much > accustomed to with Python, Go, and Cinnamon team with the pristine-tar.. > is this all really neccessary? Not sure what do you mean here but no, nothing is really necessary as long as you have an orig.tar. > What is the proper way to get the source? There is no single "proper" way. > What ways are allowed and what aren't? What can I do and what can't I do? This is very vague but you can do anything that gives you an orig.tar. "How to do that automatically", "how to integrate this with my packaging git repo" and "how to integrate this with gbp" are separate unrelated questions. > I'm in a tight situation where I'll be building weekly tags (not to > mention finding a sponsor who will even be okay with the crazy crap I'm > going to be pulling off for this to actually work), what are the > standards? What is policy about? The policy doesn't talk about your packaging git repo. You can even not have one, or not publish it. Additionally, even if you have one there is no single accepted structure for it. gbp is not the only way to use a repo and there is no single way to use gbp. etc. So even in your case there are multiple valid options how to do the packaging, how to make a packaging repo and how to integrate it with the upstream source, from not doing it, to making tarball and importing them into the repo, to packaging tags directly. -- WBR, wRAR
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature