Re: Maintaining yorick in Vcs at debian.org (Was: RFS: yorick/2.2.02+dfsg-2)
On Thu, Jun 14, 2012 at 04:14:07PM +0200, Thibaut Paumard wrote:
> > I would definitely ask for this. Please try to follow Debian Science
> > policy[1] closely and use the debian.org infrastructure to enable
> > effective team maintenance.
>
> I have two questions that I need to decide before I commit anything to
> alioth:
I admit I do not feel fully competent for all these questions but
because there was no other answer I'll give it a try:
> - since Yorick and its add-ons make 17 source packages (and growing),
> wouldn't it make sense to put their respective repositories in a
> subdirectory:
> /git/debian-science/packages/yorick/yorick.git
> /git/debian-science/packages/yorick/yorick-foo.git
> /git/debian-science/packages/yorick/yorick-bar.git
I have no idea whether there is some similar example but at least your
suggestion sounds reasonable to me - so I'd say yes.
> - Yorick is only distributed from github (no distinct tarballs, just
> git tags). It has to be repackaged to meet the DFSG. What I was
> experimenting with on github is:
> - one branch mirroring upstream (contains non-DFSG-free material);
> - one branch for the DFSG free source;
> - one branch for the Debian packaging.
> Is that a reasonable approach for Alioth or should the non-DFSG-free
> files never enter the debian.org domain?
I have no experience with github at all. If there is no release tarball
I usually create a script debian/get-orig-source and add this to
debian/watch (I guess it is somehow possible to parse the web interface
from github for new tags) and also call it in debian/rules target
get-orig-source.
> > Further things to consider: I'm not a user of yorick but from my
> > feeling it would be rather typical to name the metapackage "yorick" and
> > the former yorick package "yorick-base" (or something like this). I
> > left it as is for the moment because I assume you will have your reasons
> > to do it that way but you might consider this for future releases.
>
> I add thought about that too and I'm glad you answer that for me.
:-)
> I think we are too close from freezing to undertake such a transition
> (all the yorick-* packages would need to depend on yorick-base instead
> of yorick etc...). Isn't that also your opinion ? Depending or
> "yorick-base | yorick" would certainly ease transition and upgrades.
That's the reason why I just uploaded without insisting in what I would
have called the better solution.
Kind regards
Andreas.
--
http://fam-tille.de
Reply to: