On 08/15/2014 10:16 PM, Raphael Hertzog wrote: > Some initial questions and possible answers: > > - how do we name the various branches? > > - <vendor>/master for the main development trunk (aka unstable in Debian) > - <vendor>/<codename> for alternate versions > > The goal here is to be able to host in the same repository the branches for > multiple cooperating distributions (at least so that downstream can > clone the debian respository and inject their branches next to the > debian branches).
I generally use debian/unstable, but sometimes, it's best to follow upstream (for OpenStack, I use debian/icehouse, debian/juno, etc.), so there's no one-size-fit-all here. > - how do we tag the upstream releases? > > - upstream/<version> > (note: we don't need an "upstream" branch, having the good tag for any > release that the distros are packaging is enough, it can point to a > synthetic commit built with tools like git-import-orig or to a real > upstream commit) Why would you tag the upstream release? I mean, it's upstream's job to do so, and it's natural to use their git tagging and their git repository, no? > - how do we tag the package releases? > > - pkg/<version> > (note: git-buildpackage uses debian/<version> but I find this confusing > as we then also have the "debian/" prefix for ubuntu or kali uploads, we > don't need the vendor prefix as the usual versioning rules embed the > downstream distribution name (e.g. 1.0-0ubuntu1) and thus there can't be > any conflict on the namespace, keeping a prefix is important to easily > differentiate tags created by upstream developers from tags created > by packagers) Shouldn't ubuntu or kali use ubuntu/<version> and kali/<version>? I don't see a problem here. > - where should the HEAD point to in the public repository? IMO, it should point to the packaging branch for Sid, but YMMV. Why is this important? > - shall we standardize the "pristine-tar" branch? As in, always use pristine-tar? No! The point of using git packaging is also to be able to use upstream git repo. > - the above layout is for the traditional case of non-native packages, > what would be the layout for native packages? how can be differentiate > between native/non-native layout? Sorry, which layout are you talking about? With pristine-tar? Well, I don't think using pristine-tar is in any way "traditional", it's just one of the workflow, which I always avoid if upstream is using Git and has correct tagging. > - <version> encoding (due to git restrictions): > ":" -> "%" > "~" -> "_" I do use "~" -> "_" myself. Very useful. > - are there other important things to standardize? Yes. Producing orig.tar.xz out of upstream tag should be industrialized, and written in "some" tools, which we would all be using. I currently do: ./debian/rules gen-orig-xz, but that shouldn't be specific to my own packages. Thomas -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: https://lists.debian.org/53ee4041.2090...@debian.org
