Re: using git-dpm or plain git-buildpackage in PAPT and DPMT
On 08/10/2016 10:41 PM, Barry Warsaw wrote:
> * IOW, if
> you choose to use gbp-pq, am I forced to do so when I modify the same repo?
> Or if you choose to use PoQ (plain 'ol quilt), will that affect how others
> can co-maintain the package in git?
That's the point. If we decide to use gbp-pq, in fact, we're deciding to
not decide, and anyone can use PoQ (my choice, for example). Indeed, the
way to store the patches is PoQ, and you then "gbp-pq import", modify,
then "gbp-pq export" and store the packaging branch like this (ie: like
a PoQ branch). So, basically, we'll be back to what everyone else is
doing (ie: 99% of git maintained packages in Debian as much as I saw).
On 08/11/2016 01:12 AM, Simon McVittie wrote:
> no other special metadata present in git (you can optionally commit a
> debian/gbp.conf, and I would recommend it, but it isn't required)
IMO, that's required if we decide to continue using pristine-tar (which
I don't think is a good idea, but let's not discuss that, as there seem
to be a consensus for it).
On 08/11/2016 01:12 AM, Simon McVittie wrote:
> Not good for gbp-pq (it works OK, but an import/export round-trip will
> mangle the metadata if you don't take steps to preserve it):
>
> Author: Donald Duck <donald@example.com>
> Description: Reticulate splines correctly
> This regressed in 2.0.
> .
> In particular, this broke embiggening.
> Last-update: Fri, 01 Apr 2016 12:34:00 +0100
> Origin: vendor, Debian
> Forwarded: http://bugs.example.org/123
> ---
> [diff goes here]
>
> Regards,
> S
If this is what gbp pq does, then that's the *right* thing (I don't
remember, probably because it didn't destroy my Debian headers, which I
carefully crafted by hand...).
Cheers,
Thomas
Reply to: