Re: Packaging new version of ZODB (Zope Object Database)
On Nov 03, 2016, at 08:36 PM, Julien Muchembled wrote:
>I'm used to gbp. I don't know git-dpm (or I forgot after seeing I would not
>like?)
git-dpm is usually pretty easy, but it's really only used in a few cases, such
as importing a new upstream, managing the patch stack, and tagging. We
document the team's use cases pretty well so you don't even really have to
remember much:
https://wiki.debian.org/Python/GitPackaging#New_upstream_release
For a lot of other package management tasks (e.g. building source packages,
cloning, pulling, etc.), gbp works just fine.
That said, we know git-dpm has not been developed in a very long time, and is
for all intents and purposes, abandonware. It works, so I don't think there's
a huge urgency to get rid of it (obviously, since we haven't ;) but it should
be in our long-term team goals to move away from it.
>Not sure if all python-modules repositories are like persistent, but for me,
>mixing Debian work with imported tarballs in the same branch is
>terrible. When possible, I prefer to fork the upstream repository, otherwise
>no upstream source at all.
You're not alone, but I think that's still a minority opinion in the team.
Our packages are so tightly integrated with PyPI, and source tarballs are such
an ingrained aspect of that service, that a pristine-tar based approach for
team packages still makes sense, IMHO.
Cheers,
-Barry
Reply to: