On Tue, Dec 27, 2016 at 04:38:59PM -0500, Antoine Beaupré wrote: > On 2016-12-26 18:55:31, Roberto C. Sánchez wrote: > > All, > > > > I recently saw that php5, squid, and squid3 have LTS-specific > > repositories on git.debian.org. Since imagemagick appears to have a > > large volume of issues for the LTS team to address and at least once we > > have had to effect a hand-off part way through preparation of an upload, > > I have gone ahead and created a collab-maint repository for imagemagick > > LTS work. > > > > The repository can be cloned here: > > > > ssh://git.debian.org/git/collab-maint/debian-lts/imagemagick.git > > > > It uses the standard master/upstream/pristine-tar branch layout, so it > > should work with the normal gbp commands (e.g., gbp buildpackage) > > without any special configuration. > > > > I grabbed all the deb7u? versions from the archive and from > > snapshot.debian.org and then used 'gbp import-dscs' to give us some > > semblance of history at least for all the wheezy security updates. > > > > This should help make the imagemagick updates a bit smoother, I think. > > Hmm... imagemagick is *already* in collab-maint. The whole purpose of > this repository is to allow for... well... collaborative maintenance. :) > Why create a separate repository? > Have you tried actually using the imagemagick collab-maint repository? It appears astoundingly complex. There are 492 branches, with at least one for each Debian revision. I feel like it would take me longer to figure it out than it would to prepare the upload.
Besides, php5 is already in pkg-php/pkg-php5 and squid and squid3 are in pkg-squid/pkg-squid and pkg-squid/pkg-squid3, respectively. So far as I know, there is not specific guidance indicating that we must or must not use existing package repositories for LTS work. > Shouldn't we reuse the wheezy branch instead? > In principle, I like this idea, but for imagemagick specifically I do not. If you feel like the imagemagick repository I created should not be there, I will gladly remove it. It was very little work (one dget command and two gbp commands), so it is no great loss. Regards, -Roberto -- Roberto C. Sánchez http://people.connexer.com/~roberto http://www.connexer.com
