Re: Request for peer review of clamav-unofficial-sigs
On Thu, Nov 22, 2018 at 03:07:36PM +0800, Paul Wise wrote:
> I'm not sure how you want to use git for packaging. I used gbp and
> pristine-tar. These days I would personally remove all upstream code
> from git and store only the debian/ directory. A more popular option
> is to use the DEP14 standard for this. I'm not sure how the clamav
> team do things these days.
To the contrary, I would heartily recommend keeping upstream code in git,
and burying gbp far away from any of your machines. Being able to use git's
power to merge/cherry-pick patches with upstream both ways is awesome.
Quilt makes a really poor VCS, and is really fit only for old-style
tarballs. These days, most upstreams don't use autotool-like workflows
and the tarball is merely a snapshot of a tree pointed by a git tag.
This applies to clamav-unofficial-sigs as well.
But then, the set of workflows in Debian is anything but not diverse.
⣾⠁⢰⠒⠀⣿⡁ 10 people enter a bar: 1 who understands binary,
⢿⡄⠘⠷⠚⠋⠀ 1 who doesn't, D who prefer to write it as hex,
⠈⠳⣄⠀⠀⠀⠀ and 1 who narrowly avoided an off-by-one error.