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

Re: Packaging of various XStatic dependencies for an eventual MoinMoin 2 package

On Friday, 10 June 2022 16:47:16 CEST Thomas Goirand wrote:
> What we do in the OpenStack team, is that we package from git tag. This
> means that we do not use pristine-tar, and use a single Debian packaging
> branch.

As far as I understand it, this wouldn't be too different to what I am aiming 
to do with the other packages: pull upstream changesets into the repository, 
merge the upstream branch into the Debian packaging branch, refine the 
packaging, and I imagine that I should be tagging the packaging branch for 
each new package release.

> Indeed, the branch names are according to the OpenStack branches. This
> is useful for us, because we have automation to build backports for
> every release of OpenStack (every 6 months), based on it.


> The workflow to update a package is *very* efficient: that's in practice
> a way faster than if using upstream tarballs. Here's the list of commands:
> # Fetches latest tag
> ./debian/rules fetch-upstream release
> # Merge the tag in the packaging branch
> git merge -X theirs <TAG_NAME>
> # Edit changelog so it matches the new upstream tag
> dch -i
> # Generate the tarball using git-archive
> ./debian/rules gen-orig-xz
> I'd prefer if you could package the XStatic package you mentionned in
> the moins-moins group. If you do, you don't really have to use the
> OpenStack packaging workflow. The only thing is, if one day, we need one
> of these XStatic packages, then maybe it'd be best to allow us to move
> them to the OpenStack team.
> Your thoughts? Are the above explanations enough?

I can make a start and try and observe the conventions used by your XStatic 
packages, and I will discuss with the others in the moin group whether we keep 
the same branch naming conventions or adopt yours. I suppose that we can 
always migrate to a different naming convention fairly easily at some point in 
the future, anyway.

Thanks for replying!


Reply to: