On Sat, Feb 15, 2020 at 02:41:59PM +0100, Geert Stappers wrote: > On Sat, Feb 15, 2020 at 08:33:25AM -0500, Roberto C. Sánchez wrote: > > On Sat, Feb 15, 2020 at 02:16:27PM +0100, Harald Dunkel wrote: > > > Hi folks, > > > > > > I am maintainer for mg, currently on salsa. Problem is, upstream > > > doesn't release tar balls anymore, but moved the code to github. > > > No tags. > > > > > > How can I tell Salsa? Should I drop the upstream and pristine-tar > > > branches on Salsa and integrate the repository on github? Would > > > you suggest to move the debian part to github instead? > > > > > > Every helpful comment is highly appreciated > > > Harri > > > > > You could probably add the GitHub project as a new remote, then through > > gbp.conf (assuming you are using gbp) you can name a new branch as > > 'upstream'). Alternately, you could rename the current upstream branch > > as something else and then checkout the master branch from the GitHub > > remote as 'upstream' in your repository. You might also have to make > > some minor tweaks, but the above are the major steps. > > Please state some examples where that is done. > I'm not aware of any, else I would had given them. Regardless, gdp doesn't really care the source of its 'upstream' branch, nor its name if given in the configuration. Of course, if upstream is no longer releasing tarballs and Harald decides to track the GitHub upstream project as the 'upstream' branch in the repository where the Debian package is maintained, then the pristine-tar will probably have to go. But that seemed to be understood from the initial message.
Either way, gbp is sufficiently flexible and configurable to be used in the way Harald describes. Regards, -Roberto -- Roberto C. Sánchez
