Re: Updating fis-gtm package to 6.1
Hi Luis,
On Wed, Feb 05, 2014 at 09:37:29PM -0500, Luis Ibanez wrote:
>
> Following the policy for Git-based packaging, we should be able
> to host both versions 6.0 and 6.1 side by side without conflict.
Yes. But we probably need to find out how to work with branches in
git-buildpackage. I admit I never used this but I think this will work
out. Probably we need to go with a debian/gbp.conf per branch, since if
we maintain different source packages (and the different versions of
fis-gtm need to turn out as different source packages) in one repository
we need to keep different debian/changelog branches etc.
> I have checked with Bhaskar and Amul, and we are in agreement
> on the benefit of preparing 6.1 for the packaging.
I have noted that Bhaskar likes to have different fis-gtm versions
packages and I simply trust that there are good reasons for it.
However, we should find some measure how many different versions Debian
can stand. I think it is not rectified importance-wise to have say more
versions than gcc or so. Which means at some point in time we should
drop 6.0 in favour or 6.3 or 7.0 whatever will be released. This
restriction is to let the security team not become crazy about the
maintainability of n versions of a software which has (at least for the
moment) only few users.
In short: Yes, lets go with the packaging but lets think about a
reasonable upgrade path for the future.
> I have volunteered to do the update, and will check on Bhaskar's
> and Amul's advice and review as we get ready for testing it.
Good.
> Given that upstream adopted the CMake build infrastructure
> that we developed for the Debian packaging, we anticipate that
> this will be a smooth update... [ ..famous last words... ;-) ]
:-)
> Would you welcome this update at this point ?
We should also define the "default" fis-gtm version. You could steal
the packaging idea from gcc or python or whatever - so if the user
wants to install fis-gtm he gets the latest version.
Kind regards
Andreas.
--
http://fam-tille.de
Reply to: