Re: Git-buildpackage question: tracking upstream git and tarballs
Le Thu, Apr 07, 2016 at 03:25:08PM +0200, Raphaël Halimi a écrit :
>
> If I understand [1] and [2] correctly, one would need two upstream
> branches : one originating from upstream, with the full commit history,
> and one managed by gbp import-orig, which would contain upstream sources
> imported as single tarballs commits.
>
> [1] http://www.eyrie.org/~eagle/notes/debian/git.html#combine
> [2] http://honk.sigxcpu.org/projects/git-buildpackage/manual-html/gbp.html
>
> I don't understand the reason for having two separate upstream branches.
> Is there a specific reason against having a single upstream branch,
> which would contain the full upstream commit history, and maintaining
> the pristine-tar branch with a plain old "pristine-tar commit <tarball>
> <upstream branch>" (since gbp import-orig would want to import the
> tarball files and create a new tag, which both may conflict with the
> upstream branch/tags) ?
Hi Raphaël,
if in your case it works well to pull updates directly from Upstream's
repository and to use downloaded tarballs from the upstream website, then there
is no problem to use pristine-tar directly instead of gbp import-orig, as you
suggested. (The answer from Ferenc explains well why in some cases there can
be problems caused by differences between the upstream repository and the
upstream tarballs).
If you do this and intend to make your source package's repository easy to use
for collaborative maintenance, it will be good to document this workflow
somewhere (perhaps README.source ?) since it is not standard. Otherwise,
people may run gbp import-orig and waste time wondering why it did not work as
expected.
Have a nice day,
--
Charles Plessy
Tsurumi, Kanagawa, Japan
Reply to: