[pkg-fso-maint] I need a DD to upload libfsoresource :-)
dr at jones.dk
Sun Mar 14 19:49:47 UTC 2010
On Sun, Mar 14, 2010 at 08:01:21PM +0100, Heiko Stübner wrote:
>Am Sonntag 14 März 2010 15:58:21 schrieb Jonas Smedegaard:
>> I had a look, and wonder: Why use unusual branch naming?
>> If upstream code was called "upstream" (not "upstream-dist") and our
>> packaging was called "master" (not "debian") as is the default for
>> git-buildpackage then checking out initially would be as easy as
>The debian git follows the upstream one. I.e. master is upstreams
>cornucopia repository and I extract the subdir to the upstream-dist
Sorry, I do not understand.
I tried reading the debian/copyright file to find the upstream source
but that only points to http://www.freesmartphone.org - some fumbling
around and guessing lead me to http://git.freesmartphone.org/ but there
I see no libfsoresource which is a) a problem for me to understand right
now and b) unacceptable for Debian.
Please elaborate more on the correlation between Upstream Git and Debian
packaging Git - both what has been done and also what was the intend of
doing what was done. Perhaps if I understand both I can suggest a
structure which is both convenient for your needs and elegant for other
Debian developers to grasp (I have had some experience in keeping
upstream and Debian Gits in sync at the Sugar project(s)).
>> gbp-clone git.debian.org:/git/pkg-fso/libfsoresource
>> Would you mind me renaming those branches (causing all current
>> subscribers of the git to re-clone, but better now than later)?
>As we will follow upstreams git for a while still, I would like to keep
>the branches as is for now. With this layout it's possible to make
>scnapshots with relative ease [merge master to "programname"-branch,
>merge "prog"-branch to upstream-dist, run autogen, merge to debian,
>update build files, build].
>Also this helps visualize where each one comes from. I.e. debian branch
>on top of upstream etc.
I fail to see a problem in renaming the branches. Only if a single Git
repository is used for both upstream work and Debian packaging would
that be needed as I see it - and I strongly recommend against that.
Unless I missed something special to this particular project, Git have
no problem renaming brnaches across clones and still keep things in sync
- like this:
Upstream Git Debian Git
upstream-dist -> upstream
I would really want to rename now before too many start tracking our
Git, as I believe we cannot rename without all users of the Git
needing to handle it manually.
So please try convince me what is so special here, or allow me to
>> Also, would you mind me adding some of the latest cool CDBS additions
>> to the packaging, like get-orig-source handling and copyright-check?
>that would be cool :-). The git repos should be writeable for pkg-fso
I'll wait until above is sorted out...
* Jonas Smedegaard - idealist & Internet-arkitekt
* Tlf.: +45 40843136 Website: http://dr.jones.dk/
[x] quote me freely [ ] ask before reusing [ ] keep private
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Size: 836 bytes
Desc: Digital signature
More information about the pkg-fso-maint