Hi ! Le mercredi 21 août 2024, 23:37:38 CEST Chris Hofstaedtler a écrit : > Hi Simon, > > * Simon Richter <s...@debian.org> [240820 09:11]: > > One of the long-standing issues is that there are multiple ways Debian > > packaging can be represented in a git tree, and none of them are optimal.
[…] > > Any feelings/objections/missed requirements? > > In the current DEP14/DEP18 discussions a lot of discussion was had > about how we should represent Debian things in git; your mail also > goes into this direction. In the Qt/KDE Team (~600-700 source packages) we’ve taken the complete opposite approach. We keep debian/ only repos in salsa and don’t put the upstream source in git anywhere, only in the uploads to the archive. Updating a package to a new upstream version is then as simple as a new changelog entry, and uscan / dpkg-builpackage / sbuild handle the rest for us. I personally think it’s crazy / not a good use of my time to try and mix both upstream and packaging history in the same repo and try to make git dance around that when handling new upstream releases. The extents of the ongoing d-devel discussions on the topic tend to reinforce that feeling. Keeping debian and upstream changes separate is a nice feature. I’d even qualify the debian-only workflow as essential for packages with large source trees like Qt WebEngine that embeds Chromium. The source-included workflows add orders of magnitude of overhead in this kind of situation. (For some value of $fun, try cloning the mesa or Firefox repos from a sloppy Internet connection for a packaging analysis or an occasional contribution.) Happy hacking, -- Aurélien
