On Thu, Oct 25, 2012 at 12:18:51AM -0700, Dima Kogan wrote: > > That was quick, great. Right now a $ git-buildpackage fails for me with the > > message "gbp:error: upstream is not a valid branch", and if I try to > > checkout > > the upstream branch, I get into 'detached HEAD' state with > > HEAD is now at b9bd818... updated README, verify_index.pl to refer to > > "notion" > > I set it up to take the upstream code from the branch "upstream". When you > checked out the code, you only checked out the "master" branch. Thus you > didn't > have a branch "upstream", only "origin/upstream". There are several ways to > deal > with this. The easiest is to check out the code with "gbp-clone" instead of > "git > clone". As far as I can tell this does a normal clone and also checks out the > "upstream" branch. It's a bit more common to take the upstream from a tag > instead of a branch, which avoids this issue entirely. Since these contributed > scripts aren't really a project on their own (rather a collection of many > small > projects), I don't want to tag stuff.
I see. The origin -> origin/upstream change doesn't really help, but with remotes/origin/upstream instead I can finally build the package. > As for the detached HEAD, I'm not 100% sure what's going on, but it's likely > you're using git wrong somehow. I can help explain if you tell me exactly > which > commands gave you that. Apparently that's normal when checking out out a remote branch, so please just forget about it. > Sure. This was me asking for a merge to upstream. I'll be more explicit. I see, I just think it's cleaner if you don't apply the changes to the upstream branch of this repo directly. > Do you think it makes sense to keep a reference to the old, dead repo > in the README (the folk.ntnu... link)? No. I'll upload a new version of the README once I've figured out what to do with the LICENSE file. > This file was added in the very first commit in the git repo. This repo > postdates ion3-scripts, hence no such file there. Juri Hamburg pushed this > license to the repo on 2010/06/10. I'm not going to do anything with this > right now. If somebody has strong opinions, tell me. Otherwise, I think > this should be changed to "public domain" to match the previous releases. I've asked the people who created the repository and have committed to it since if we can drop the LICENSE file or at least replace the GPL3 with a more permissive license. I'll let you know about the outcome. Might take a while though. > Not on purpose. This was an oversight on my part. Added. Also found > another missing one: heuristics.lua. There are now 3 files with unspecified > licenses. What should be done with these? Not sure. I might mail the authors of statusbar_fname.lua and xkbion.lua, and drop heuristics.lua which is most likely completely outdated and not relevant anymore. > The new debianization is now uploaded to that same repo. I'll hang out > in #notion for a few hours (I'm in the USA), so you can talk to me there > if you like. Okay, we've missed each other (I'm in Europe). :) Cheers, Philipp -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-bugs-dist-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
