Re: Packaging new version of ZODB (Zope Object Database)

[Julien Muchembled <jm@jmuchemb.eu>]

Le 11/04/16 à 16:15, Scott Kitterman a écrit :
> On Friday, November 04, 2016 10:47:32 AM Barry Warsaw wrote:
>> On Nov 03, 2016, at 08:36 PM, Julien Muchembled wrote:
>>> 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.
> 
> You can integrate a new upstream directly from an upstream git repository with 
> git-dpm if that's what makes sense for a particular upstream.

That's tempting and I was about to ask how, but I doubt the team would accept. The Zope foundation already releases everything on PyPI and the policy says: « Complete upstream git history should be avoided in the upstream branch. [...] When you must (not want to) deviate, »

So I plan to create only 3 new packages in DPMT:
- python-btrees
- python-zc.customdoctests
- zodbpickle


Packages maintained by the Debian/Ubuntu Zope Team, like zodb, will stay where there are (since I prefer git-svn+source-less), and I'll also create 'zeo' there (because it depends on zodb).


https://wiki.debian.org/Python/GitPackaging:
> Q: Source-full or source-less branches? A: Source-full branches please! There are lots of good reasons for this, including the ability to easily diff between upstream versions, [...]

Such source-full tree is unusable for me. I need git-blame too and auto-generated files are annoying.


Julien