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

Re: ncbi-tools6 does not simply build via gbp due to changed files



Hi, Andreas.

Andreas Tille <andreas@an3as.eu> 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[1] 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
approaches?

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://stuff.mit.edu/cgi/finger/?amu@monk.mit.edu


Reply to: