Bug#1007108: Fwd: ITP: qpwgraph -- User interface for controlling the PipeWire Graph
Hi Chris,
Le sam. 12 mars 2022 à 11:39, Christopher Obbard
<chris.obbard@collabora.com> a écrit :
>
> > - salsa-ci.yml is not needed anymore as we can directly use the config
> > file from the salsa team:
> >> https://salsa.debian.org/salsa-ci-team/pipeline/blob/master/README.md#basic-use
>
> Right, I initially used dh_make which generated that salsa-ci.yml file.
> I've now removed it from the repo.
>
> Do you think it is worth opening a bug/merge request there to either
> remove the generated file or add a comment about it not being needed any
> more?
This file can be useful is you want to custom the salsa pipeline, but
keeping the default one is not needed. dh_make is doing the right
thing by proposing a template of the pipeline config file.
> > - Is there a specific reason to target the upstream dev website
> > instead of the gitlab repo in the d/watch file? I guess he can forget
> > to update it contrary to its gitlab repo.
>
> I did think about that, but most other packages I have seen target the
> upstream's website in the watch file.
>
> For the record, the upstream tarball on the author's website doesn't
> include the gitlab-ci file or some other bits, so they're not the same
> archive as what you would download from gitlab.
Okay it is up to you :-) Targeting github or gitlab is not a problem,
a lot of packages do it.
> > - The history of your master and upstream branches is uncommon, I
> > think you cloned the upstream repo and then imported the upstream
> > tarball with gbp? It would be cleaner to just create these branches
> > using gbp import-orig.
>
> Right, I wanted to experiment with keeping the upstream git history
> (like the pipewire packaging) rather than just importing all of the
> files in a single commit like how import-orig would in the usual case. I
> did that by:
>
> $ git init
> $ git remote add upstream git@gitlab.freedesktop.org:rncbc/qpwgraph.git
> $ git checkout -b upstream v0.2.2
> $ gbp import-orig --upstream-vcs-tag v0.2.2 --pristine-tar
> ../qpwgraph-0.2.2.tar.gz
Both way are fine, it is up to the preferences of the maintainer or to
the team policy. If you want to keep the upstream git history, you
don't need to use gbp import-orig, this modifies the upstream branch
and we should not do that :-).
But, you can populate the pristine-tar branch with:
$ pristine-tar commit ../qpwgraph-0.2.2.tar.gz
I just sent the package to the NEW queue. Thanks for your work!
Best,
Dylan
Reply to: