Re: Documenting packaging workflows (was: finally end single-person maintainership)
> I would be *very* interested in more in-depth write-ups of the workflows
> other DDs prefer to use, how they use them and what they think makes them
> better than the alternatives.
Packages of which I am not the creator:
salsa project and gbp
UNLESS they are qt/kde stuff
in which case
salsa project and debian/ directory kept on salsa, because that's how the team
does it.
Packages of which I am the creator:
debian/ directory kept in the same tree as the rest of the project, then a
Makefile to pretend that they are separate entities, that generates a .orig and
then builds the whole thing extrating the .orig and placing the debin/
directory appropriately.
It is for this case that I would be annoyed by having to use salsa. Because
the projects are not on salsa to begin with.
I'm also annoyed at the default ci configuration for salsa, because importing a
project makes a CI start to run, then fail. Then I have to one by one point
the CI file to something else, but the project will forever be "CI failing" and
will be reported forever as such in my status page.
--
Salvo Tomaselli
"Io non mi sento obbligato a credere che lo stesso Dio che ci ha dotato di
senso, ragione ed intelletto intendesse che noi ne facessimo a meno."
-- Galileo Galilei
https://ltworf.codeberg.page/
Reply to: