Re: ncbi-tools6 does not simply build via gbp due to changed files
Andreas Tille <firstname.lastname@example.org> writes:
> since Liubov Chuprikova added autopkgtest to ncbi-tools6 I tried to
> build the package but failed. The repository contains upstream files
> that are different from the upstream tarball and it is not clear to me
> how this package should be build at all with this setup.
This setup historically worked fine, just didn't accommodate added (or
changed) *binary* files (as introduced by this test).
> Moreover it seems to be the only package of Debian Med team that is
> not using source/format 3.0 (quilt) which should be used according to
> our policy unless a different format brings a specific advantage.
I must have missed that detail. My personal preference has long been to
treat Debian source trees as ordinary branches of the corresponding
upstream codebases, since I find this arrangement more natural and in
many respects more straightforward to work with than a patch system,
even with the help of quilt.
I'm pushing changes that formally switch to 3.0 (quilt) and inform
dpkg-source that it has a (specific) binary file to accommodate. I've
declared single-debian-patch mode for now, though, since I don't have
time to split out individual patches at the moment. In the long term,
how do you feel about gbp-pq(1) as a compromise between our preferred
BTW, I see that the repository has moved to Salsa (thanks!) Are you
planning to update the Vcs-* fields accordingly?
Aaron M. Ucko, KB1CJC (amu at alum.mit.edu, ucko at debian.org)
http://www.mit.edu/~amu/ | http://email@example.com