Hi Emmanuel, On Mon, Jun 21, 2021 at 01:33:11PM -0300, Emmanuel Arias wrote:
On 6/21/21 11:06 AM, Dave Jones wrote:On Sat, Jun 19, 2021 at 06:40:58PM -0300, Emmanuel Arias wrote:Also, you can try to follow DEP-14 (although is mark as candidate) and add debian/master as default branch.Ah, this was something that confused me a bit when initially working on this. I'd read through DEP-14, but then figured a simple way to start would be to grab my existing packaging for Raspbian and use gbp import-dsc on it. This set up the repo with a "master" branch rather than "debian/master" and I then wondered if I'd mis-interpreted DEP-14's prescription to use "debian/master", and whether it meant one should use "debian" branch or alternatively a "master" branch.I think that I don't understand you, sorry :(. But DEP-14 recommend the use of <vendor>/* for name the branchs, so for debian the branch should be debian/*, for ubuntu ubuntu/*, etc.
Ah, sorry -- I'll attempt to elaborate my (rather silly) leap of "logic". Having read [PY-GIT] and [DEP-14], and knowing that gbp was specifically made for Debian packaging, after using "gbp import-dsc" I was slightly surprised to wind up on a "master" branch rather than "debian/master". I generally assume that tooling made specifically for a purpose (like Debian packaging) probably knows what it's doing better than I do, and hence I wondered whether I had missed something and whether (yes, it seems silly in hindsight, but still) the recommendation to use "debian/master" was to be interpreted as "debian or master" rather than a literal "debian/master" string.
Anyway, that's why I initially pushed a "master" branch rather than "debian/master" (under the assumption that gbp's defaults are probably a better bet than me trying to second guess the interpretation of standards :).
[PY-GIT] https://wiki.debian.org/Python/GitPackaging#Git_Branch_Names [DEP-14] https://dep-team.pages.debian.net/deps/dep14/In any case, I've fixed up the branches in the repo now and I *think* I've got the CI configuration in the right place, though it doesn't seem to have triggered a run yet. I've probably missed something in the repo config -- will dig into that in a mo.
Thanks for all the advice! Dave.