peter karlsson wrote:
> I would prefer not to make unnecessary copies...
I think you're referring to the local repository as being unnecessary,
in which case I'd agree with you. However, if you do use local
repositories and do not have direct upstream CVS access, vendor
branchanes are far too convenient to be unnecessary.
> Ah. cvs-buildpackage. Yeah, that one could need some documentation.
> I tried using it once, but gave up. And I do have some CVS
> knowledge... :-)
You need to do like any developer: Read the scripts themselves.
They're all bash scripts, IIRC. Run it verbose. Watch what happens.
It's really not all that cryptic. Throw a '-x' in the pound-bang
line. ;-)
> However, what I'm thinking of now is to branch out the Debian
> specific changes in the upstream CVS, so for each release tagged in
> the CVS, I create a Debian branch where I add all the Debian files.
> That should be easy enough.
I'm finding that branches can often be overkill and more difficult to
maintain in the long run. Personally, I would go with your first idea
and set it up as a module, not a branch. You can still maintain
separate versioning for the packaging code. I'd reserve branches for
separating lifecycles of the software itself, or for short term
bugfixes.
(start) ------+----:-+-+----:-;--- (stable) 0.2.x
`----^ | `----^ |
(bug) | (bug) |
`--------+------- (unstable) 0.3.x
where + == branch pt.
: == merge pt.
; == backport merge pt.
Remember, too, that you don't have to branch the entire source tree.
Anyway, back to work I go. ;-)
--
Chad Walstrom <chewie@wookimus.net> | a.k.a. ^chewie
http://www.wookimus.net/ | s.k.a. gunnarr
Key fingerprint = B4AB D627 9CBD 687E 7A31 1950 0CC7 0B18 206C 5AFD
Attachment:
pgpNtQAo9S5F2.pgp
Description: PGP signature