Ian Jackson <ijack...@chiark.greenend.org.uk> writes: > But, this repo seems very large. Is there something in it that > shouldn't be there?
Hmm, I'm not exactly sure what's there. I was actually trying to clone it to understand the situation (I'm very new to dgit), because an attempt to push the latest release had failed. This may be the first time I've used dgit (myself) for emacs-non-dfsg, but it should just match what's on salsa (https://salsa.debian.org/rlb/deb-emacs), which is the normal emacs package repo, containing both emacs and emacs-non-dfsg, and that repo does include Emacs upstream too (to support cherry picking, allow use of git to help maintaining the dfsg split, etc.). I've been told that our arrangement is a bit unusual for (current) dgit because in addition to hosting multiple Debian distributions in the repo, we need to host multiple source packages for the dfsg split, and for guile, multiple X.Y versions (until recently, this was also true for Emacs). It used to be that both Guile and Emacs had multiple X.Y versions and multiple source packages, but Guile is happily no longer dfsg split, and the emacs packages have been "unversioned", so for guile we have: deb/guile-{2.2,3.0,...}/d/{sid,bookworm,...}/{upstream,master} deb/guile-{2.2,3.0,...}/v/{3.0.10,3.0.10-1,...} and for Emacs: deb/{emacs,emacs-non-dfsg}/d/{sid,bookworm,...}/{upstream,master} ... (I chose the deb/ prefix (a long time ago) to make it less likely any Debian refs would collide with upstream refs.) For now, I've been advised to just use a temporary clone for dgit commands so that it won't introduce incompatible branches/tags/etc. into the normal working repo(s). Thanks for the help -- Rob Browning rlb @defaultvalue.org and @debian.org GPG as of 2011-07-10 E6A9 DA3C C9FD 1FF8 C676 D2C4 C0F0 39E9 ED1B 597A GPG as of 2002-11-03 14DD 432F AE39 534D B592 F9A0 25C8 D377 8C7E 73A4
