Re: git packaging workflow notes, diagram
On Thu, 04 Apr 2013 11:13:05 +0200
Daniel Pocock <daniel@pocock.com.au> wrote:
> On 04/04/13 10:07, Jérémy Lal wrote:
> > On 04/04/2013 09:55, Daniel Pocock wrote:
> >> Hi all,
> >>
> >> I've had a few discussions with people about the git workflow for packaging.
> >>
> >> I've now made a diagram about this that may be useful for people, it is
> >> relevant to autotools projects in particular:
> >>
> >> http://danielpocock.com/autotools-project-distribution-and-packaging-on-debian
> >>
> >> Please let me know if anything could be clarified further
> > Conondrum can be solved, as explained today by Russ Allbery :
> >
> > http://www.eyrie.org/~eagle/journal/2013-04/001.html
> >
>
>
> I actually think that the comments from Joey and Russ are both very
> valuable and it would be good to get everything together into a single
> document that explains both the dual-repository approach and the
> combined approach.
>
> My comments were not intended to (and do not prevent) what either of
> them is proposing. Certainly, it was meant to raise awareness of the
> fact that files from the upstream tarball may not be in upstream's tag:
> and I simply provide one way of dealing with it, a method that is used a
> lot and that was what I came across at the time I started contributing
> packages to Debian.
>
I recall a discussion here[1 and followups] about a connected issue:
another point of importing tarballs with pristine-tar was told to be
the fact that .orig.tar.gz generated from git are not stable and thus
there could be problems with DAK when re-uploading them.
[1] http://lists.debian.org/debian-mentors/2012/12/msg00044.html
However I don't know if this remark is still valid with the current
tools and workflows. Could anyone please clarify the situation?
Thanks,
Antonio
--
Antonio Ospite
http://ao2.it
A: Because it messes up the order in which people normally read text.
See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style
Q: Why is top-posting such a bad thing?
Reply to: