Re: Git packaging workflow discussion on planet.d.o

2013-04-10 Thread Roger Leigh
On Wed, Apr 10, 2013 at 09:11:05AM +1000, Craig Small wrote: > On Thu, Apr 04, 2013 at 02:25:30PM +, Jeremy Stanley wrote: > > makes a lot of sense. If your packaging workflow does not rely on > > importing the contents of release tarballs, then for projects like > > this you miss some content

Re: Git packaging workflow discussion on planet.d.o

2013-04-10 Thread Jonathan Dowland
On Wed, Apr 10, 2013 at 09:11:05AM +1000, Craig Small wrote: > That was the part I didn't understand. What are people doing to solve > this generated files at release problem? I've solved this as upstream > and a Debian developer by having tarballs. Run the 'dist' stages as part of the 'build'

Re: Git packaging workflow discussion on planet.d.o

2013-04-09 Thread Craig Small
On Thu, Apr 04, 2013 at 02:25:30PM +, Jeremy Stanley wrote: > makes a lot of sense. If your packaging workflow does not rely on > importing the contents of release tarballs, then for projects like > this you miss some content unless you re-run the same release > scripts post-facto. That was the

Re: Git packaging workflow discussion on planet.d.o

2013-04-05 Thread Guillem Jover
On Sat, 2013-04-06 at 04:40:00 +0800, Thomas Goirand wrote: > On 04/05/2013 06:57 PM, Guillem Jover wrote: > > A better way to write the above could be: > > > > gen-author-list: > > git shortlog -nes | tr -s ' '| cut -f2- > > > > which in addition will fix up the authors using any .mailmap rule

Re: Git packaging workflow discussion on planet.d.o

2013-04-05 Thread Andreas Tille
Hi, On Fri, Apr 05, 2013 at 10:21:58AM +0200, Tollef Fog Heen wrote: > ]] Andreas Tille > > > Hmmm, you just show some more code as in your blog but this is not > > addressing the three flaws of the workflow I was mentioning in my > > initial mail. I'm honestly wondering whether I'm missing som

Re: Git packaging workflow discussion on planet.d.o

2013-04-05 Thread Thomas Goirand
On 04/05/2013 06:57 PM, Guillem Jover wrote: > On Thu, 2013-04-04 at 23:07:04 +0800, Thomas Goirand wrote: >> gen-author-list: >> git log --format='%aN <%aE>' | awk '{arr[$$0]++} END{for (i in >> arr){print arr[i], i;}}' | sort -rn | cut -d' ' -f2- > A better way to write the above could be

Re: Git packaging workflow discussion on planet.d.o

2013-04-05 Thread Guido Günther
On Thu, Apr 04, 2013 at 09:38:36AM -0700, Russ Allbery wrote: > Jean-Christophe Dubacq writes: > > > Yesterday, however, I just had the case of a project with no tarballs > > (as the library I wanted to package is part of a larger project, it's > > not released independently). I stumbled (too lon

Re: Git packaging workflow discussion on planet.d.o

2013-04-05 Thread Guillem Jover
On Thu, 2013-04-04 at 23:07:04 +0800, Thomas Goirand wrote: > gen-author-list: > git log --format='%aN <%aE>' | awk '{arr[$$0]++} END{for (i in > arr){print arr[i], i;}}' | sort -rn | cut -d' ' -f2- A better way to write the above could be: gen-author-list: git shortlog -nes | tr

Re: Git packaging workflow discussion on planet.d.o

2013-04-05 Thread Tollef Fog Heen
]] Andreas Tille > Hmmm, you just show some more code as in your blog but this is not > addressing the three flaws of the workflow I was mentioning in my > initial mail. I'm honestly wondering whether I'm missing something > and these are non-issues. They seem to just be deficiencies in the too

Re: Git packaging workflow discussion on planet.d.o

2013-04-04 Thread Andreas Tille
On Thu, Apr 04, 2013 at 11:07:04PM +0800, Thomas Goirand wrote: > Well, if you really want to generate these from Git, that's > also possible (though the changelog might be quite big, so > in some cases, I'm about to give up on that...): > > gen-upstream-changelog: > git checkout master >

Re: Git packaging workflow discussion on planet.d.o

2013-04-04 Thread Andrey Rahmatullin
On Thu, Apr 04, 2013 at 08:21:44PM +0100, Jonathan Dowland wrote: > > otherwise the workflow becomes clumsier > Just to be clear, did you read Russ' blog - are you referring to the merge > trick he uses in his workflow for this purpose? I've even owned the bug report that led to the Russ's approac

Re: Git packaging workflow discussion on planet.d.o

2013-04-04 Thread Jonathan Dowland
On 4 Apr 2013, at 20:16, Andrey Rahmatullin wrote: > otherwise the workflow becomes clumsier Just to be clear, did you read Russ' blog - are you referring to the merge trick he uses in his workflow for this purpose? -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subje

Re: Git packaging workflow discussion on planet.d.o

2013-04-04 Thread Russ Allbery
Andrey Rahmatullin writes: > On Thu, Apr 04, 2013 at 12:07:42PM -0700, Russ Allbery wrote: >> Since the Debian archive needs the tarballs *anyway*, the small amount >> of additional work required to use the upstream release tarballs so >> that we're obviously consistent seems worth it. > FSVO sm

Re: Git packaging workflow discussion on planet.d.o

2013-04-04 Thread Andrey Rahmatullin
On Thu, Apr 04, 2013 at 12:07:42PM -0700, Russ Allbery wrote: > Since the Debian archive needs the tarballs *anyway*, the small amount > of additional work required to use the upstream release tarballs so that > we're obviously consistent seems worth it. FSVO small. It's easy when the tarball is fi

Re: Git packaging workflow discussion on planet.d.o

2013-04-04 Thread Russ Allbery
Thomas Goirand writes: > On 04/05/2013 12:38 AM, Russ Allbery wrote: >> Using git archive to generate a tarball from upstream is something that >> I do in some cases as well. It all depends on upstream's release >> process. I default to using released tarballs if they exist and are >> useful, b

Re: Git packaging workflow discussion on planet.d.o

2013-04-04 Thread Thomas Goirand
On 04/05/2013 12:38 AM, Russ Allbery wrote: > Jean-Christophe Dubacq writes: > >> Yesterday, however, I just had the case of a project with no tarballs >> (as the library I wanted to package is part of a larger project, it's >> not released independently). I stumbled (too long) on having a good >>

Re: Git packaging workflow discussion on planet.d.o

2013-04-04 Thread Russ Allbery
Jean-Christophe Dubacq writes: > Yesterday, however, I just had the case of a project with no tarballs > (as the library I wanted to package is part of a larger project, it's > not released independently). I stumbled (too long) on having a good > workflow for this (I ended up tagging myself the u

Re: Git packaging workflow discussion on planet.d.o

2013-04-04 Thread Andrey Rahmatullin
On Thu, Apr 04, 2013 at 04:11:31PM +0200, Jean-Christophe Dubacq wrote: > Yesterday, however, I just had the case of a project with no > tarballs (as the library I wanted to package is part of a larger > project, it's not released independently). I stumbled (too long) on > having a good workflow fo

Re: Git packaging workflow discussion on planet.d.o

2013-04-04 Thread Thomas Goirand
On 04/04/2013 10:25 PM, Jeremy Stanley wrote: > On 2013-04-04 16:00:34 +0200 (+0200), Andreas Tille wrote: > [...] >> I can not see how Joey[1] and Daniel[3] would solve these problem when >> they are not interested in upstream tarball releases any more. > It's worth pointing out, packagers should

Re: Git packaging workflow discussion on planet.d.o

2013-04-04 Thread Jeremy Stanley
On 2013-04-04 16:00:34 +0200 (+0200), Andreas Tille wrote: [...] > I can not see how Joey[1] and Daniel[3] would solve these problem when > they are not interested in upstream tarball releases any more. It's worth pointing out, packagers should not assume just because an upstream uses a VCS with p

Re: Git packaging workflow discussion on planet.d.o

2013-04-04 Thread Jean-Christophe Dubacq
On 04/04/2013 16:00, Andreas Tille wrote: Hi, as a non-regular planet reader I'd like to move the discussion here. I have read the following blog entries [1] http://joeyh.name/blog/entry/upstream_git_repositories/ [2] http://www.eyrie.org/~eagle/journal/2013-04/001.html [3] http://thomas