On Friday, April 18, 2025 7:40:27 PM Mountain Standard Time Nandakumar Edamana wrote: > On 19/04/25 07:37, Phil Wyett wrote: > > Package is looking promising with a few things to work on. > > > > Do not feel like you have to fix all at once. Take bites at it and > > do uploads and we can check as we go along. :-) > > Thanks a lot for the detailed and friendly review. The lintian > version I was using didn't report most of those issues; will try to > fix as many as possible. > > Quick question: I keep the changes for Debian packaging as part of > my primary > tree, and since the program itself is not changed since the last > release, adding > a `+n` to the upstream version is how I track these changes (hence > the `+1` in > `0.1.250414+1`). So, naturally, my fixes for this review will be > versioned something like `0.1.250414+2`, and that's what I'll be > uploading using `dput`. > Is that okay? As an upstream developer of software in Debian, my personal recommendation is that you don’t do the Debian packaging in your upstream repository. I host my own git instance with my upstream code here: https://gitweb.stoutner.com/?p=PrivacyBrowserPC.git;a=summary I have a Salsa repository with the Debian packaging here: https://salsa.debian.org/soren/privacybrowser There are a lot of advantages to hosting the packaging in Salsa, including Salsa CI. https://salsa.debian.org/salsa-ci-team/pipeline Which produces the following: https://salsa.debian.org/soren/privacybrowser/-/pipelines/852997 I also use the git-buildpackage structure for my Salsa repository. Explaining all of what that means is beyond the scope of this email, but there is a brief explanation of how that makes my life easier here: https://lists.debian.org/debian-mentors/2024/09/msg00057.html -- Soren Stoutner soren@debian.org
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.