[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: [RFS] mseed2sac and sac2mseed: seismic data conversion tools

On Thu, Jan 25, 2018 at 06:05:54PM +0100, Paride Legovini wrote:
> Hello Sébastien,
> Thanks for your careful review.
> On 2018-01-23 16:47, Sébastien Villemot wrote:
> > I just looked at mseed2sac, but maybe the remarks below also apply to
> > sac2mseed:
> Indeed most of them did apply also to sac2mseed.
> > - the Vcs-Git and Vcs-Browser fields in debian/control should point to the
> >   Debian packaging (on salsa.debian.org), not to the upstream sources
> Fixed, but of course at some point I would prefer to host the
> repositories in the science-team group.

Sure. So I just created the repositories in science-team on salsa and added you
as Developer for each project (since you are apparently not yet a member of the
Science Team group).

The URLs should be:

 Vcs-Browser: https://salsa.debian.org/science-team/mseed2sac
 Vcs-Git: https://salsa.debian.org/science-team/mseed2sac.git

Note that both mseed2sac and sac2mseed repositories are currently empty, so
it's up to you to initialize them (possibly by changing branch names, see below).

> > - please also use standard git-buildpackage branch names, i.e. "upstream" for
> >   upstream sources and "master" for Debian packaging (this naming scheme is
> >   expected in the Debian Science Team).
> Well, I chose this naming scheme (branch "master" tracks upstream,
> branch "debian/sid" contains the Debian packaging) because it was what
> the gbp documentation suggested, see:
> /usr/share/doc/git-buildpackage/manual-html/gbp.import.upstream-git.html

I see. This is because git-buildpackage now recommends to follow DEP-14
conventions (see http://dep.debian.net/deps/dep14/), at least when importing
upstream's git history.

> Are you asking me to change the names of the branches just to keep the
> structure of the debian-science packages uniform, or is there another
> reason I'm missing?

Indeed it's mainly because in Debian Science we use the
master/upstream/pristine-tar scheme (and we therefore do not apply DEP-14).
It's also because we do not incorporate upstream's git history in our
repositories. We just track the tarballs. See:


> I'm asking just to understand: I have no problem in
> changing the names, but on the other side I'd like to stick with a
> somehow uniform workflow for my Debian packages. Is there a general best
> practice to follow when using git and upstream tagged releases?

There are many different workflows used across Debian. The one used by the
Science Team is fairly popular, but it is obviously not the only one.

> > Otherwise your packaging looks good (though I can't promise that there are no
> > other issues that may be discovered in a second round of review).
> Thanks. In debian-science do you rely on mentors for reviewing, or do
> you review directly from the git repository?

We don't use mentors. We review directly from the git repository. Sponsorship
requests should be sent to the debian-science@ list, just as you did, and
hopefully someone will reply. If nobody replies, you can then try the “Sponsoring
of the Blends” way, see https://wiki.debian.org/DebianPureBlends/SoB.


⢀⣴⠾⠻⢶⣦⠀  Sébastien Villemot
⣾⠁⢠⠒⠀⣿⡁  Debian Developer
⢿⡄⠘⠷⠚⠋⠀  http://sebastien.villemot.name
⠈⠳⣄⠀⠀⠀⠀  http://www.debian.org

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: PGP signature

Reply to: