Re: git branches vs debian specific git tools (Re: RFC for changes regarding NMU in developers reference (Was: ITN procedure?)

[Gioele Barabucci <gioele@svario.it>]

On 12/05/25 10:31, Andrey Rakhmatullin wrote:
> On Mon, May 12, 2025 at 09:54:38AM +0200, Gioele Barabucci wrote:
> > > > Regardless of what branch names packages use today or in the future,
> > > > they should all have a debian/gbp.conf file that defines what branches
> > > > and packaging practices are being used *right now*.
> > >
> > > I dont want to use git-buildpackage and I don't want a gpb.conf. 
> > > Please accept
> > > this. Thanks.
> >
> > gbp.conf would probably be more widely accepted if it were called 
> > "Debian.source.conf" or something neutral like that.
>
> I don't think gbp.conf is generic enough to not be called gbp.conf. Some 
> parts of it, maybe.

Is that a problem in practice?

Debian.source.conf (or d/source/repo-info) could be defined as the file 
where all machine-readable information about how to build the package is 
stored. A machine-readable version of d/README.source.

Things like the branch layout format (local and upstream) or whether 
this is an overlay repo are useful to all programs. The rest of the 
information can simply be ignored. And other programs could add their 
tool-specific stanzas.

Regards,

--
Gioele Barabucci