[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

Andreas Tille <tille@debian.org> writes:

> I admit that there is probably no right or wrong in the choice of a
> workflow but if it comes to team maintenance commented patches are more
> obvious for your team mates.

Fair enough.

> That's fine.  Some patches look as if you have forwarded these upstream
> and we can create more sensible patches with next upstream version.

FWIW, I don't anticipate any more upstream releases, as upstream is
really trying to phase this code base out.  Already, the latest release
occurred only because a government-wide HTTPS mandate was going to break
previous releases' ability to communicate with NCBI servers.

>> how do you feel about gbp-pq(1) as a compromise between our preferred
>> approaches?
> I admit I have never dealt with this.  I think I can live with it if gbp
> would work out of the box.  If there are some specific hints needed
> please frop these in debian/README.source.

OK, thanks.  I'll look into switching over when I get a chance.

> In short: If you want to change Vcs URLs manually now you do not need
> to do it later.

Got it.  My approach has been to switch the fields as part of preparing
to make an upload, but redirection does certainly still work for now.  I
do share your frustration that the anonscm alias didn't offer as much
permanance as promised.

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: