[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: lv2file 0.95



Hi Dennis, this is because the upstream development occurs in the same git repository.  So upstream/0.95 is the tag created by `gbp import-orig`, but UPSTREAM/0.95 is the "real" upstream tag, independent of any debian packaging work.  This is what Alessio suggested when we originally created the packaging. That's why I switched the watch file to watch the UPSTREAM tag, since the upstream tag will only change once the new debian package has been created.

This weirdness is what I was asking about before, caused by upstream and debian packaging being in the same repository.  I did find https://honk.sigxcpu.org/projects/git-buildpackage/manual-html/gbp.import.upstream-git.html which provides some alternative suggestions about how to do the packaging.

Jeremy

On Mon, Feb 21, 2022 at 3:28 PM Dennis Braun <d_braun@kabelmail.de> wrote:
Ok, sorry for the noise.
after i removed my local repo and cloned the lvfile repo again i have
found the new 0.95 tag, strange.
somehow we have now double upstream tags, one in capital letters, one
normal.
Well, the build looks good now:
https://salsa.debian.org/multimedia-team/lv2file/-/pipelines/351486
Do you use irc too? :) if yes, you can find me in oftc under the nick snd.

Am 21.02.22 um 20:57 schrieb Dennis Braun:
> Hi Jeremy,
>
> thank you :)
> hm but the salsa repo was not updated properly, there is no new
> pristine tar file/data.
> also on github there is no new tag, 0.93 is the last?
>
> Please read:
> https://wiki.debian.org/DebianMultimedia/DevelopPackaging#Uploading_new_upstream_version_to_existing_repository
>
> Best regards,
> Dennis
>
> Am 21.02.22 um 19:56 schrieb Jeremy Salwen:
>> Hi Dennis,
>>
>> I have updated the debian repository with lv2file upstream 0.95.
>>
>> The debian patches were upstreamed so I removed them, and I also updated
>> the watch file to point to the correct upstream tag.
>>
>> I am not sure if there is more I need to do for the release, I
>> updated the
>> changelog with UNRELEASED, I am unsure whether I should be changing
>> that to
>> `unstable`.
>>
>> Jeremy
>>
>



Reply to: