Re: tetex-* CVS repository on klecker?
On Sun, Feb 17, 2002 at 03:22:02PM -0800, C.M. Connelly wrote:
>
> Thinking off the top of my head here (and remember that I'm not
> quite a CVS wizard, although I've started using it pretty
> extensively for some things)...
I'd highly recommend looking at the cvs-buildpackage package. There's
a small bug I've just reported (don't have a number yet) which means
it can't handle tetex-* automatically quite yet (it can't handle the
'+' in version numbers -- tags can't use '+'), but this can be
overcome with the -V option (tell it that we're dealing with version
1.0.7.20011202 instead). It makes doing CVS for Debian packages much
easier.
> Sources
> =======
>
> I'm not sure how different the Debian package sources are from
> what Thomas Esser releases, but we'd probably be better off having
> the source in CVS match what we use for packaging. Doing so would
> mean that any new upstream sources would have to be massaged into
> a checked-out version of our sources and then be checked in.
>
> The other option would be to keep things more like Thomas's stuff,
> and have scripts that would build source trees for releases from
> the archive, which I would think would be a lot messier.
AFAIK, the source packages are pristine upstream. Am I correct?
> Tags & Branches
> ===============
>
> Probably at the least we would want to be tagging Debian releases
> and any upstream releases separately. (So we'd have, for example,
> INITIAL CHECKIN, DEBIAN tetex-base 1.0.2+20011202-2, UPSTREAM
> 20020305, DEBIAN tetex-base 1.0.2+20020305-1, DEBIAN tetex-base
> 1.0.2+20020305-2, etc.)
We should use cvs-buildpackage's tagging scheme as described in my
other email. Even if some of us don't use the package, it is a fine
tag naming scheme which is simple and easy to stick to.
> We might also want to have branches, so that we can maintain the
> teTeX that's released with woody separately from the work being
> done for the next release. (We'd create the branch when the
> version of teTeX that's being released is done, and continue work
> on the main tree thereafter, but could check out the woody branch
> to fix bugs in woody without changing other files.)
Absolutely.
> Changelogs
> ==========
>
> I was also thinking about what we should be doing for changelogs
> (for individual files that we modify), but hadn't come to any real
> conclusion. We could either
>
> 1. Create a new version in debian/changelog, and log changes
> there (with entries like
>
> * texk/tetex/fmtutil: patched to fix format generation
> problem (closes: #xxxxxx) [cmc@debian.org]
> * texk/tetex/fmtutil.8: modified to reflect changes in fmtutil
> script [cmc@debian.org]
>
> ) as well as in individual files that are changed, with
> whoever makes the final determination about making a release
> being responsible for checking over those notes before
> finalizing the changelog
>
> 2. Just log changes in the logs for the individual files, and
> use a tool such as cvs2cl (in the cvs2cl package) to
> generate changelogs that are then included in the
> debian/changelog file
>
> I'm not sure which is better, although (2) is easier (because you
> only need to log changes in one place). We'd probably have to do
> some experimentation with cvs2cl to get output to match what we'd
> want, but it looks to be pretty powerful and flexible, so if it
> can't do what we want, we could either fix it or dump its output
> as XML and manipulate that with another script of our own.
Good point, although (1) makes it easier for the person finally
building the package, and also means that only significant entries end
up in the changelog. ("Oops -- I goofed that. Trying again."
doesn't need to end up in debian/changelog!)
We do need to make a decision, though.
Julian
--
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Julian Gilbey, Dept of Maths, Debian GNU/Linux Developer
Queen Mary, Univ. of London see http://people.debian.org/~jdg/
http://www.maths.qmul.ac.uk/~jdg/ or http://www.debian.org/
Visit http://www.thehungersite.com/ to help feed the hungry
Reply to: