Hi Mike, On Tue, Apr 19, 2016 at 10:17:07AM +0000, Mike Gabriel wrote: > > Personally, I am not a great fan of gbp. It has caused me more trouble than > served any good (and I really think that gbp is a great tool for Debian > packaging, as I said, my personal workflow does not use it). > > What I prefer doing (and this is personal style, really): > > o Have a well-defined tarball (i.e. provided by upstream, Debian archive > (snapshot.debian.org), pristine-tar) > o Have a Git repo with debian/ folder only. > > Then I do: > > o Obtain the tarball (get-orig-source, pristine-tar checkout, etc.) > o then: > > $ debuild -uc -us -S -Zxz (on the folder with the debian/ folder only > in it) > $ cd .. > $ sbuild -sAd unstable <dsc-file> > > That works perfectly for all of my packages (MATE desktop, GOsa).
So you are using the workflow I use with SVN. :-) > I once dropped using gbp when I discovered that gbp does not support > multi-tarball Debian packages (GOsa packaging is unhandable with gbp). This > may have changed meanwhile, but I don't see that benefit of shipping > upstream code in packaging repos. (Maybe I have looked to much at > http://pkgs.fedoraproject.org/cgit/rpms/, as well). I can confirm that the benefit of having upstream code is limited - for your workflow its probably not needed. > About the tarball download source: Once some upstream release has been > uploaded to Debian with source format 3.0, I consider the upstream tarball > being available in Debian (or on snapshots.debian.org). Personally, I don't > see the extra gain of shipping the same code in Git. Again, very personal > style and way of seeing things. I have no idea how many packages I touched in Debian Med team Git but its possibly more than 100. Our team policy was developed by several people all confident that gbp is a great tool and I adapted to this workflow with some stumbling stones in the beginning. My summary is: I have the least problems with this compared to all other workflows I adapted to. Thus I convert any package with tarballs diverging from an upstream download tarball to this repository layout. Since I personally do not see any disadvantage for your workflow (despite the fact that some extra diskspace might be consumed) I would be really happy if we could agree upon this for xrdp. Kind regards Andreas. -- http://fam-tille.de
