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.
Understood.
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!