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

Re: Proposing 2025 workflow changes for Go team



Otto Kekäläinen <otto@debian.org> writes:

> Hi all Go team members,
>
> I am proposing we update the Go team workflow for 2025 on a few points:

Thank you!  Good to start discuss this.

> 1. Switch to most recent and final DEP14 names 'debian/latest' and
> 'upstream/latest': https://github.com/Debian/dh-make-golang/pull/225
>
> Go team already follows DEP14 since 2019, but the standard evolved, so
> Go team should update accordingly. We can start doing this in new
> packages by merging the PR above, and then later update old packages
> by using upcoming dep14-convert script from devscripts.

How does that work?  As far as I know, you cannot both have a 'upstream'
branch and a 'upstream/latest' branch.

Would removing the old 'upstream' branch mean that all git repositories
we have are useless for rebuilding old packages?

Alas I think to some extent that is already the case though since the
pristine-tar branches have sometimes been purged, which is unfortunate
since it complicate rebuilding of earlier versions in the git
repository.

> 2. Use name 'upstreamvcs' for upstream instead of 'upstream'
>
> See https://salsa.debian.org/go-team/infra/pkg-go-tools/-/merge_requests/3.
> This makes use of DEP14 easier, and makes Go team guidance also
> compatible with `gbp clone vcs-git:<package> --add-upstream-vcs`
> command.

Is there any wide adoption of this pattern?  I find it ugly.  What is
the reason?  To avoid clashing with upstream/latest branch?  If so how
about simply calling the remote 'up' instead?

> 3. Stop modifying upstream path and only touch debian/*
>
> Most packages in Go seem to use quilt instead of gbp pq, which leaves
> around .pc files. Also most packages seem to output in dh rules to
> _build instead of debian/.. like everything else in dh does. This can
> be fixed by merging https://github.com/Debian/dh-make-golang/pull/230
> and start to apply to new packages.

+1

I didn't look at that patch, but I really found the current .pc hacks
strange and agree we should not touch anything beyond debian/.

> 4. Start running Salsa CI on Go team packages manually
>
> The current Go team CI run is incomprehensible to me. It does at least
> *not* test the most important thing a CI in Debian should do, which is
> to tell if a package builds in Debian or not. This can be fixed right
> away by making manual extra Salsa Ci runs easy  with
> https://salsa.debian.org/go-team/infra/pkg-go-tools/-/merge_requests/2

+1

Yes - although can we do without using upstream/downstream?  Just use
the normal Salsa CI pipeline, but add the current test_the_archive as a
separate job.  Doesn't that work?

> 5. Enable Salsa instance runners in Go team and run Salsa CI automatically

+1

> Once 4 is done, we can further tweak the Salsa CI template to best fit
> Go team, and in maybe 3 months follow up by getting a setup that
> automatically runs at least the package build, autopkgtest and Lintian
> jobs from Salsa CI.

+1

> If people agree with these suggestions and we are OK to proceed with
> it, I can continue to work on them coming months, as well as submit MR
> to update https://salsa.debian.org/go-team/go-team.pages.debian.net to
> have everything up to Debian 2025 standards level.

Yay!

/Simon

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: PGP signature


Reply to: