RFS: emerillon

[Mathieu Trudel-Lapierre]

Le vendredi 09 avril 2010 à 08:17 +0200, Andreas Henriksson a écrit :
> On tor, 2010-04-08 at 22:10 -0400, Mathieu Trudel-Lapierre wrote:
> [...]
> > Keeping in mind the (off-topic) discussion on bug 575384, the
> > rationale for having this retrieved from git is that it simplifies (at
> > least for me) maintaining and regularly building the package, if
> > nothing else because I am already using the same or very similar
> > recipes in other packages, including in helping maintaining
> > NetworkManager in Ubuntu.
> [...]
> 
> I suggested that you look at gnome-pkg-tools "get-orig-source" rules.
> Did you? 

Indeed not *yet*. I wanted to get more input first, and will now gladly
look at it and update the package accordingly, just like I will take on
Josselin's offer and hop on OFTC to discuss this further.

Maybe it's just me, but I feel it's efficient to quickly send an RFS
intended to feel for interest, get some initial feedback, and in
parallel reading up on gnome-pkg-tools.

[...]

> 
> I do understand that you might want to easily be able to build local
> test versions straight from git for your testing, but these should IMHO
> not be uploaded as official Debian packages.
> 

I agree, any random git commit X shouldn't just be blindly uploaded as
an official Debian package.

However, I can see a reason already to publish a git commit for
emerillon rather than the last release (but feel free to let me know if
you feel this is unreasonable): the last release of emerillon (0.1.1)
was in January, and since there has been commits to git with additional
translations. I'd very much like to be able to include those, for the
benefit of everyone.

> I don't understand what advantage your "never fetch the real orig
> tarball" rules has over gnome-pkg-tools, please explain.
> 
> (As I see it, with gnome-pkg-tools you get the best of both. Easy
> building from git and fetching of real tarballs for official uploads.)

> (I don't see that you're doing this for all *your* packages in *ubuntu*
> as an explanation and strong reason to go with your way over already
> established ways of handling this used by *many* maintainers inside
> *debian*.)
> 

At least for me, it makes sense to use already *known to me* and
*comfortable to me* ways of handling this, in the event that I was to
maintain it alone (or with other people who are familiar with this
method). It doesn't mean it's something I invented, and actually isn't
the case anyway. It's also clear I couldn't just use a method I was not
aware of yet, but thanks for pointing it out to me. These reasons of
using my method is obviously no longer a valid point if maintaining
emerillon with pkg-gnome, where yes, gnome-pkg-tools is the established
way of fetching tarballs or building from git.

-- 
Mathieu Trudel-Lapierre <mathieu.tl at gmail.com>
Freenode: cyphermox, Jabber: mathieu.tl at gmail.com
4096R/EE018C93 1967 8F7D 03A1 8F38 732E  FF82 C126 33E1 EE01 8C93
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 836 bytes
Desc: Ceci est une partie de message num?riquement sign?e
URL: <http://lists.alioth.debian.org/pipermail/pkg-gnome-maintainers/attachments/20100409/9e969eea/attachment.pgp>