Hi Antoine, Antoine Beaupré <anarcat@debian.org> writes: > A few comments... > > Why do you specify a compression level and algorithm in gbp.conf? > > compression = xz > compression-level = 9 > This reduces the incidence of encountering an annoying gbp bug, where gbp fails, allegedly because "two tarballs were found", even when the tarball did not previously exist on disk and is generated on demand from upstream tag. Other than that it's harmless and redundant, because these settings are now gbp defaults. > Upstream doesn't seem to use any peculiar tarball format, so that > generated tarball won't match the one published on github. > I'm using release tags directly and not github generated & published tarballs ("why" is another discussion). The reason the Emacsen Team requests a tarball in d/watch is because the git mode we previously used was too resource-intensive. The bug mentioned above also has a useful (hack of a) side-effect in that it seems to enforce new upstream version imports from git tags rather than github-generated tarballs. Whenever the "light" git-mode becomes generally recommended and preferred over the tarball one I'll switch my upstream-uses-github packages over to it. > I also wonder if it's really necessary to ship a git snapshot instead of > the 1.12 release... I see it includes a patch to tweak the GPL version, > is that why that was done? > For multiple past NEW packages, ftpmasters have asked me to contact upstream about licensing problems (eg: we're accepting, but you need to do xyz), so I started doing this preRFS. Then lamby asked me not to carry licensing-related-changes as a quilt patch--with good rationale that I agree with. Thus, packaging a git snapshot. The contradictory declared license issue is here: https://github.com/ahyatt/emacs-websocket/issues/62 > Are the tests included in the package build? or autopkgtest? could that > be done? Not a blocker. > Sorry, I don't understand what you mean... ERT tests are already run during the build, autopkgtest-pkg-elpa has been activated (d/control:L12), I've confirmed autopkgtest runs the tests, and I've also opened an upstream issue about integrating the functional tests into the ERT framework: https://github.com/ahyatt/emacs-websocket/issues/64 Since all NEW packages now require two uploads before they can enter testing, I like to add value to the second upload, and the following brand new commit seems like a good candidate for this: https://github.com/ahyatt/emacs-websocket/commit/69ee80a88ba825a925e82a5576a340b3ec03fd51 Depending on how long it takes this package to pass NEW upstream might tag a new release including that commit, which would be ideal for the second upload! > Otherwise looks good. > Thanks for reviewing :-) 'hope my reply sufficiently addresses your concerns! Cheers, Nicholas
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature