Sean Whitton writes ("Re: Bug#903392: want support for packaging-only
maintainer views"):
> On Sun 19 May 2019 at 11:24pm +0100, Ian Jackson wrote:
> > Sean, there is of course the other possibility, where upstream is only
> > a tarball. I propose to intend to support this, eventually, with
> > --quilt=packaging-plus-tar
>
> I think that for workflows where only debian/ is checked into git, not
> having the upstream git history is probably more common than Shengjing's
> case of having an upstream/foo tag.
>
> Thus, I suggest that we use the shorter names --quilt=packaging for the
> tarballs-only case, and --quilt=packaging-git for Shengjing's workflow.
Are you sure about this conclusion ? Firstly, about "how common": eg,
the current Linux kernel packages have upstream git.
Secondly:
If the user says "use upstream from git" but there is no git, the user
gets an error message mentioning git tags and that can also say
something about the other quilt mode.
If the user says "use upstream tarball" but they had git available,
the result is to silently ignore the upstream history and use a
tarball import instead.
In keeping with the philosophy of making doing the right thing
convenient, suboptimals things possible, and requiring mistakes to be
explicit, ISTM that the tarball variant should mention that.
> An alternative to 'packaging' would be 'debiandir'.
In my new taxonomy, I call this "bare debian" so baredebian would be a
possibility.
I think quilt modes could contain + signs so perhaps
baredebian+git
baredebian+tarball
Ian.
--
Ian Jackson <ijack...@chiark.greenend.org.uk> These opinions are my own.
If I emailed you from an address @fyvzl.net or @evade.org.uk, that is
a private address which bypasses my fierce spamfilter.
