<div dir="ltr">If building requires gbp options, you should ship a debian/gbp.conf which sets them. I’m happy to amend the policy document to make this explicit, but this was the intention all along.<div><br></div><div>Ideally, your GBP repository would look like any other repository in pkg-go. That said, we haven’t quite standardized on a format yet I think.</div></div><div class="gmail_extra"><br><div class="gmail_quote">On Mon, Oct 19, 2015 at 9:53 AM, Dmitry Smirnov <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:onlyjob@debian.org" target="_blank">onlyjob@debian.org</a>></span> wrote:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><span class="">On Monday 19 October 2015 08:15:37 Michael Stapelberg wrote:<br>
> Dmitry, note that the pkg-go team policy states that packages must be<br>
> buildable using git-buildpackage:<br>
> <a href="https://pkg-go.alioth.debian.org/packaging.html" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">https://pkg-go.alioth.debian.org/packaging.html</a><br>
><br>
> So, even if you prefer not to use git-buildpackage, please at least verify<br>
> before pushing your repository that it can successfully be built using<br>
> git-buildpackage (without having to specify any options).<br>
<br>
</span>Thanks, Michael, I'm aware that repositories should be buildable with GBP.<br>
For compatibility with GBP I maintain "upstream" and "pristine-tar" branches<br>
using "gbp import-orig" command at the cost of additional effort that frankly<br>
I find quite uncomfortable especially for packages with bundled Godeps that<br>
needs to be removed during repackaging of orig tar.<br>
I do not like upstream files mixed with packaging in "master" branch so I<br>
prefer to keep 'em separate. I'm sure this layout is buildable with GBP as I<br>
verified it myself and I know that other teams (i.e. KDE team) use even<br>
simpler repository layout without "upstream" branch at all.<br>
Policy do not say that repository layout should allow packages to be build<br>
using GBP's _default configuration_. If having upstream and debian packaging<br>
together in "master" were a requirement the I'd probably maintain all my<br>
packages in collab-maint.<br>
Having said that, I'm happy to use GBP repository layout if any contributing<br>
co-maintainer strongly prefers so. That's exactly how we maintain Etcd<br>
package but I do not wish to go through all inconvenience for packages that I<br>
maintain single-handedly... It's not that hard to build a package even using<br>
GBP as long as "upstream" (and optional "pristine-tar") branches exist.<br>
<br>
I think there are already too many maintainers who do not know to build a<br>
package without GBP... :(<br>
<br>
Personally I find GBP workflow limited and overly complex. I tried to use GBP<br>
in the past but ended up spending a lot more time to do the same job without<br>
obvious benefits.<br>
<span class="HOEnZb"><font color="#888888"><br>
--<br>
Cheers,<br>
Dmitry Smirnov.<br>
<br>
---<br>
<br>
The more false we destroy the more room there will be for the true.<br>
-- Robert G. Ingersoll, 1902<br>
</font></span><br>_______________________________________________<br>
Pkg-go-maintainers mailing list<br>
<a href="mailto:Pkg-go-maintainers@lists.alioth.debian.org">Pkg-go-maintainers@lists.alioth.debian.org</a><br>
<a href="http://lists.alioth.debian.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pkg-go-maintainers" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">http://lists.alioth.debian.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pkg-go-maintainers</a><br></blockquote></div><br><br clear="all"><div><br></div>-- <br><div class="gmail_signature">Best regards,<br>Michael</div>
</div>