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

Re: Workflow with debian/ in VCS

On Sun, May 15, 2011 at 10:46:00AM -0400, Nikolaus Rath wrote:
> Am I missing a tool? Or is a bad idea to try to manage debian/ in a VCS?
> Or should my repo also include the upstream source rather than just the
> debian directory?

I've never been a big fan of having just the debian/ directory
under version control.  It makes it a real pain to checkout a
source package and work on it, and it also makes it impossible
to use the VCS to manage the source package as a whole, making
one of the major gains of a VCS redundant.

Personally, I would have separate "upstream" and "debian"
branches and import all the upstream releases onto the
upstream branch.  You can also use pristine-tar to
recreate the orig.tar from the VCS (see git-buildpackage for
example).  You can then merge each new upstream release onto
the debian branch and add the debian/ changes on top.  This
means that each debian/ change is tied to a specific upstream
version, and you can merge new upstream releases easily and
compare changes between upstream releases and different
debian revisions etc.

You can also have multiple upstream branches, so you can
track development and stable releases.  And you can do the
same for debian, so you can maintain stable releases in
unstable, development releases in experimental should you
need to, and also handle stable point releases, backports
etc. with ease.  And because it's all in one place, you
can cherry pick changes, branch and merge at will etc.

You also gain (with git) signed tags for all upstream
imports and debian releases, so you also have integrity
checking and cryptographic validation of the entire thing as


  .''`.  Roger Leigh
 : :' :  Debian GNU/Linux             http://people.debian.org/~rleigh/
 `. `'   Printing on GNU/Linux?       http://gutenprint.sourceforge.net/
   `-    GPG Public Key: 0x25BFB848   Please GPG sign your mail.

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Reply to: