On 27/11/24 04:30, Otto Kekäläinen wrote:
Secondly, it is perfectly valid for evey single package to have a
debian/gbp.conf and I would in fact prefer that. For every upstream we
need to have metadata on:
- do they have tarball releases (pristine-tar true/false)
- do they have git tags and what is the format (upstream-vcs-tag)
- are those git tags expected to be signed or not (upstream-signatures on/off)
It's great that these important pieces of information can be stored in
d/gbp.conf (and I will keep doing it), but this information should
really be stored somewhere in d/upstream/metadata.
On the same topic, many people have asked in the past for a
machine-readable and tooling-independent way to specify:
a) information about the way upstream does releases and,
b) the packaging workflow used by that package manager.
For some, this documentation would be a step-stop towards a standardized
workflow. For others, it would act as a replacement for a standardized
workflow.
We should really start a discussion on a "formalized README.source.md".
Regards,
--
Gioele Barabucci
