Hi list, On 13/08/2024 16:00, Matthew Fernandez wrote:
On 8/13/24 04:34, Daniel Gröber wrote:On Mon, Aug 12, 2024 at 11:37:24PM +1000, Dmitry Smirnov wrote:IMHO GBP approach is counter-productive, with needlessly complicatedworkflow, redundant upstream branch(es) and incredibly inconvenient mergeof debian packaging and upstream files in "master".
I haven’t followed the gbp discussion closely, but as a package maintainer who does not know Debian thoroughly I found all documented workflows except gbp near incomprehensible. This is not to say they are poorly founded or documented, but rather that they did not fit my intuitions. gbp on the other hand seemed to “just work”. The criticisms on the wiki seem to assume you’re importing a tarball, whereas I was starting from an upstream already in git (I am also the upstream maintainer). The ease of gbp to people like me is that we already know git well, but do not know Debian well.
I'm also sort of newbie as a maintainer, and it's not my main focus which is in upstream. But I basically agree, I find gbp perfectly useful.
Another aspect when coming from outside is that gbp being so much used makes things easier to understand. You need some really big benefits with another workflow to motivate even more fragmentation of how to package.
Can you see these big benefits? --alec