On 12-02-28 at 07:34pm, Kiwamu Okabe wrote:
> On Tue, Feb 28, 2012 at 6:46 PM, Jonas Smedegaard <dr@jones.dk> wrote:
> > Seems you forgot to push the tag created when you added the new
> > upstream tarball. Please do "git push --tags".
>
> Ah. I forgot it.
> I pushed it.
Yes, I got it now. Thanks! :-)
...but then I notice that commits are missing from other branches.
I suspect that you are only tracking the main "master" branch, probably
because you did a simple "git clone ..." initially.
First, please push your changes to "upstream" and "pristine-tar"
branches. There is two ways to do that: a) if you are certain that you
have not created any new custom branches locally, do "git push --all".
Alternatively (assuming your remote is named "origin" as is the default)
do "git push origin upstream; git push origin pristine-tar" to
explicitly push only those branches.
Then, when all changes in all branches of your git are pushed to our
shared git, I recommend that you change your git to properly track all
three branches - so that in the future "git status" checks them all and
only "git push" is needed to push all branches. You can explicitly do
some special git commands or manually edit .git/config directly - or you
can do the easy approach: erase your local git and make a fresh clone
like this:
gbp-clone --pristine-tar git.debian.org:/git/collab-maint/pandoc
(sorry if it was me suggesting earlier on to use simple "git clone..." -
gbp-clone is relatively new to me too, and I need to unlearn my old
habit).
> > Please always check if a package you want to work on contains a
> > README.source. This one contains one, and one of the things is that
> > I request that you bump the md5sum when updating upstream source.
>
> I can't understand it...
> Can I write md5sum on the DEB_UPSTREAM_TARBALL_MD5 line by my hand?
Yes.
Ideally CDBS would support other types of checksums too, and support
consulting a separate file potentially containing checksums from
multiple releases (so that an upstream maintained checksum file could be
fetched and used as-is). Suggestions on how to model that (choice of
filenames etc.) is much appreciated. I don't expect actual implentation
to require much effort.
> >> Sorry. It's my English mistake.
> >> I kept CDBS style debian/rules.
> >
> > No no, don't be sorry. And certainly not for your language skills:
> > I am non-english too, just happen to live in a country so small that
> > english influence through media is massive (in Denmark most movies
> > are british or american and they are subtitled, not dubbed).
> >
> > And please read what I wrote: I _encourage_ you to work in the rules
> > file too! Don't be humble - even if you make mistakes you need not
> > be sorry, we can just fix it again (and learn from it) :-)
>
> Umm...? I am confused...
> Should I keep your debian/rules style? (a)
> Or challenge to change it to the style include {debhelper,hlibrary}.mk
> 2 line only? (b)
>
> I think (b) is simple and easy to use.
> But if (b) blocks our collab-maintenance, I choose (a).
You are welcome to touch the rules _file_ but I ask you to not change
the _style_ within the file without prior discussion.
Regarding your concrete suggestion to minimize the file to only include
{debhelper,hlibrary}.mk and nothing more, I dislike that: Each of the
pieces that you then remove cause loss of (to me) nice packaging
features.
That said, I am interested in discussing further, if you like. If you
fail to see the benefit of some of the added parts, then I am happy to
elaborate on that. And if you understand what the parts does but feel
those features are perhaps superfluous then please do elaborate
yourself. :-)
Kind regards,
- Jonas
--
* Jonas Smedegaard - idealist & Internet-arkitekt
* Tlf.: +45 40843136 Website: http://dr.jones.dk/
[x] quote me freely [ ] ask before reusing [ ] keep private
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature