Holger Levsen writes ("Re: Preferred git branch structure when upstream moves
from tarballs to git"):
> as a data point: I never really got my head around gbp, too many times
> it came in the way, did things I didnt expect to do (or couldnt easily
> figure out what it did), so I basically (try to) avoid packages which
> require gbp in some way.
Fair enough.
I'm not sure what git branch format you are using. (Maybe you said it
earlier in this thread.) Packaging-only ? git-merge ?
> dgit *is* another layer of complexity on top of debuild and git (and other
> tools), as is gbp, and frankly (or sadly?), for the dgit case I dont see
> much benefit why I should use it rather than dput: my packages are
> maintained in git and have the correct Vcs-Git* headers set, so
> debcheckout will do the right thing and give you the full git history.
You should use dgit for the benefit of users. See my other mail which
answers why Vcs-Git and debcheckout is not enough.
Indeed, you yourself say you avoid gbp but for many packages, the
Vcs-Git header gives you a patches-unapplied format which requires[1]
gbp pq to switch to a patches-applied view before you build it.
([1] there are other ways to apply the patches but this is the
easiest.)
> I *do* appreciate the idea of dgit and the work put into it, I think it
> goes into the right direction, but to me it's not sliced bread yet, but
> rather a fancy new machine for slicing bread which is more complicated
> and harder to grasp, so I'm still on that old slicing machine, which I
> know since many years and which I can easily fix if the bread gets stuck
> or the knifes need resharpening or some such.
Yes, I quite understand this point of view.
Regards,
Ian.
--
Ian Jackson <ijack...@chiark.greenend.org.uk> These opinions are my own.
If I emailed you from an address @fyvzl.net or @evade.org.uk, that is
a private address which bypasses my fierce spamfilter.
