On 23/12/25 at 01:33 +0200, Adrian Bunk wrote:
> ~ 99% of my uploads are in packages where I am not a maintainer, and
> I am trying to stay away from touching git for that due to the diversity
> of ways how maintainers want an NMU integrated into git when there are
> janitor commits or a one year old aborted upgraded attempt or anything
> else I do not want to include in an NMU on the branch.
Precisely. This is why maintainer git on salsa is not, in the general
case, a good starting point for an NMU.
Lucas Nussbaum writes ("Re: Include git commit id and git tree id in *.changes
files when uploading?"):
> Ah, yes, sure, NMUs are better handled outside of Salsa, and in that
> case there's no way to link the source package and the git history.
There is. It's called "dgit clone" + "dgit push-source". And as a
bonus it's more convenient and offers less opportunity for manual
mistakes than the "apt source" + "dput" approach.
Adrian, this workflow is designed especially for you:
https://manpages.debian.org/trixie/dgit/dgit-nmu-simple.7.en.html
I do almost all of my NMUs this way, since 2013. Indeed I have more
or less forgotten all the nonsense one has to do to do it the other
way.
If the last maintainer upload didn't use tag2upload or dgit
push-source, then the NMU will be based on a dsc import. That's
necesarily precisely for the reasons you mention. In that case, the
maintainer hasn't published their git in a *standard*, *reliable* way.
Using dgit push-source properly publishes the git history in the same
standard way as tag2upload. If the package turns into one of those
that has a series of NMUs, and the NMUers all use dgit, the NMUs will
form a proper git history showing each NMUer's actual commits.
HTH.
Ian.
--
Ian Jackson <[email protected]> These opinions are my own.
Pronouns: they/he. If I emailed you from @fyvzl.net or @evade.org.uk,
that is a private address which bypasses my fierce spamfilter.
