On 18/11/2024 18:16, Kari Pahula wrote: > I'm thinking that it's the merging of debian and upstream branches and > maintaining it that really causes the warts in gbp and I'm not at all > sure if there are any actual workflows that require having that. > "upstreamless" as I described it may be a bit too much for general use > but could there be a case for doing everything with a mergeless model > instead?
Could we turn the current packaging format:
foo-1.2.3/ -> upstream source
src/
...
debian/ -> Debian inserted things
where debian/ must reside *inside* the upstream source; inside out:
foo-1.2.3-debian/
... Debian things
upstream/ -> upstream source
src/
...
where "upstream source" could be extracted from a tarball, a cloned Git
repository checked out at a specified commit, a Git submodule, etc. as the
maintainer pleases. However it's produced, it is now a "guest" of the packaging
(which now becomes the "host"), allowing the host to do more, unlike the
current way around, where the packaging is the guest and pretty limited.
So we no longer have the problem of "merging of debian and upstream branches"?
But as wRAR stated in their other email (though not directly related):
> Yes, changing Debian so that the required workflows are more simple is
> much better but also impossible.
This whimsical "4.0 (inside-out)" format is only for your entertainment. :>
--
Sdrager,
Blair Noctis
OpenPGP_signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
