Re: [Pkg-octave-devel] Octave 3.4
On Mon, Feb 07, 2011 at 10:43:48AM -0600, Jordi Gutiérrez Hermoso wrote:
> On 4 February 2011 03:29, Thomas Weber <tweber@debian.org> wrote:
> > barring any unexpected last-minute issues, Octave 3.4 will be
> > released this week-end. Please do NOT upload it immediately.
>
> Does anyone besides yourself have upload privileges right now? Or do
> you mean on the git repos?
Both. I don't want people wasting their time with anything in debian/
right now, when we are likely to change debian/rules and friends a lot.
>
> > *** Naming ***
> [...]
> > So, we need a smooth transition from octave3.2-* to octave-*.
>
> What sort of work does this require? Do we need to make dummy
> transition packages?
Yes, the octave3.2 will become transition packages. I haven't wrapped my
mind around it yet.
>
> > *** Packaging ***
> > We have a long-standing bug with respect to the placement of
> > Octave's libraries and corresponding SONAMES,
>
> > http://bugs.debian.org/510579
>
> I don't really understand what kind of work this entails either, but I
> suppose that we'll have to start maintaining an octave.symbols file as
> part of it.
Yes, probably. I'm also totally clueless right now and this isn't going
to change for the next few weeks. It might happen that we will upload to
experimental a lot before getting it right.
>
> > *** Git ***
> > We currently keep only the debian/ directory in git. Jordi did
> > change this for the symbolic package, but I think we should discuss
>
> > a) whether we want to do this at all
> > b) if yes, how to best tackle it.
>
> Well, I think it should be obvious what I think about it. Pretty much
> all of the other packagers who use git recommend having the upstream
> source under git control as well and to keep the debian/ directory in
> a separate git branch. I find it very convenient. It's a little bit of
> work, but git-buildpackage eases the process, and I think that after
> doing this for one package, it should be easier for me to do more, at
> least for the 'Forge packages. I do think that the current scheme of
> only having debian/ under source control is a holdover from the svn
> days and doesn't need to be done anymore.
My main concern about git and git-buildpackage steems from following
some talks and reading some blog posts about it. I always get the
feeling that I'll need a map just to find my way through a dozen
branches for what should be relatively simple patches.
Thomas
Reply to: