Hello,
On Thu 29 May 2025 at 11:31am +02, Marc Haber wrote:
> On Thu, May 29, 2025 at 10:27:09AM +0100, Sean Whitton wrote:
>>On Wed 28 May 2025 at 10:04pm +02, Marc Haber wrote:
>>> My personal pet peeve is the difference between the source package and the
>>> packaging git repository contents.
On Thu, May 29, 2025 at 10:27:09AM +0100, Sean Whitton wrote:
On Wed 28 May 2025 at 10:04pm +02, Marc Haber wrote:
My personal pet peeve is the difference between the source package and the
packaging git repository contents. Those two especially differ in the state of
patches: They're applied in
Hello,
On Thu 29 May 2025 at 05:26am +02, Joost van Baal-Ilić wrote:
> Isn't this what dgit is supposed to solve?
dgit solves this for people wanting to make local changes and NMUs, yes.
For maintainers, if you want to use patches-applied dgit will be happy
with it but you'll probably want to u
Hello,
On Wed 28 May 2025 at 10:04pm +02, Marc Haber wrote:
> My personal pet peeve is the difference between the source package and the
> packaging git repository contents. Those two especially differ in the state of
> patches: They're applied in the unpacked source package, and not applied in
>
On Thu, May 29, 2025 at 09:54:37AM +0200, Marc Haber wrote:
> On Thu, May 29, 2025 at 09:52:38AM +0200, Joost van Baal-Ilić wrote:
> > A, indeed. Otoh the dgit-people feel a source package should be treated as
> > an
> > intermediate build artifact; not something to be consumed by humans.
>
> Bu
Hi,
On Thu, May 29, 2025 at 09:39:01AM +0200, Marc Haber wrote:
> On Thu, May 29, 2025 at 05:26:31AM +0200, Joost van Baal-Ilić wrote:
> > On Wed, May 28, 2025 at 10:04:01PM +0200, Marc Haber wrote:
> >
> > > My personal pet peeve is the difference between the source package and the
> > > packagi
Quoting Marc Haber (2025-05-29 09:57:07)
> On Thu, May 29, 2025 at 09:21:13AM +0200, Jonas Smedegaard wrote:
> >Perhaps, to ease the burden of those of us maintaining many packages,
> >we could instead have this more complex rule:
> >
> >> The default debian branch is the first available of these,
On Thu, May 29, 2025 at 09:21:13AM +0200, Jonas Smedegaard wrote:
Perhaps, to ease the burden of those of us maintaining many packages,
we could instead have this more complex rule:
The default debian branch is the first available of these, in order:
1. debian/latest
2. debian/unstable
3. debia
On Thu, May 29, 2025 at 09:52:38AM +0200, Joost van Baal-Ilić wrote:
A, indeed. Otoh the dgit-people feel a source package should be treated as an
intermediate build artifact; not something to be consumed by humans.
But if you decide not to use dgit you're back to source packages. It
might be
On 29/05/2025 12:51 pm, Jonas Smedegaard wrote:
Quoting Xiyue Deng (2025-05-29 06:15:30)
Hi Holger,
Holger Levsen writes:
On Thu, May 29, 2025 at 12:21:16AM +0200, Jonas Smedegaard wrote:
If you suggest that using "debian/latest" should *not* be done by
default, then it seems that requires
Hi,
On Thu, May 29, 2025 at 05:26:31AM +0200, Joost van Baal-Ilić wrote:
On Wed, May 28, 2025 at 10:04:01PM +0200, Marc Haber wrote:
My personal pet peeve is the difference between the source package and the
packaging git repository contents. Those two especially differ in the state
of patches
Quoting Xiyue Deng (2025-05-29 06:15:30)
> Hi Holger,
>
> Holger Levsen writes:
>
> > On Thu, May 29, 2025 at 12:21:16AM +0200, Jonas Smedegaard wrote:
> >> If you suggest that using "debian/latest" should *not* be done by
> >> default, then it seems that requires reverting changes to DEP-14.
>
Hi,
On Wed, May 28, 2025 at 11:11:47PM +, Holger Levsen wrote:
my biggest problem with dep14 is that it doesnt recommend *one* layout. my
biggest problem with how I see that interpreted is that I think debian/unstable
is much better than debian/latest *as a default recommendation*.
because
Hi Holger,
Holger Levsen writes:
> On Thu, May 29, 2025 at 12:21:16AM +0200, Jonas Smedegaard wrote:
>> If you suggest that using "debian/latest" should *not* be done by
>> default, then it seems that requires reverting changes to DEP-14.
>
> yes. dep14 currently says "that uploads to unstable a
Hi,
On Wed, May 28, 2025 at 10:04:01PM +0200, Marc Haber wrote:
>
> thanks for writing the two most comprehensive docs about packaging, git and
> gbp I have read in the last years.
> Impressive work.
+1 !
> On Wed, May 28, 2025 at 06:36:00AM -0700, Otto Kekäläinen wrote:
> > in
> > particular
On Thu, May 29, 2025 at 12:21:16AM +0200, Jonas Smedegaard wrote:
> If you suggest that using "debian/latest" should *not* be done by
> default, then it seems that requires reverting changes to DEP-14.
yes. dep14 currently says "that uploads to unstable and experimental should
be prepared either
On Wed, May 28, 2025 at 10:05:44PM +, Holger Levsen wrote:
> I appreciate and applaus Otto's posts too, but can we please agree on
> debian/unstable, debian/experimental, debian/trixie, ... as our *default*?
> while still "allowing" debian/latest and and also debian/3.11 and
> debian/3.12 and
Quoting Holger Levsen (2025-05-29 00:05:44)
> On Wed, May 28, 2025 at 10:04:01PM +0200, Marc Haber wrote:
> > does it make sense to work in debian/latest and only last before pushing for
> > review create another branch next/debian/latest? I'd always intuitively work
> > in next/debian/latest direc
On Wed, May 28, 2025 at 10:04:01PM +0200, Marc Haber wrote:
> does it make sense to work in debian/latest and only last before pushing for
> review create another branch next/debian/latest? I'd always intuitively work
> in next/debian/latest directly.
I appreciate and applaus Otto's posts too, bu
Hi Otto,
thanks for writing the two most comprehensive docs about packaging, git
and gbp I have read in the last years. I even tried writing some. Will
stop doing that now that your docs exist. Impressive work.
I have some comments though.
On Wed, May 28, 2025 at 06:36:00AM -0700, Otto Kekäl
Hi,
In my experience many of the discussions about packaging workflows on
this list have many misconceptions, which in turn I think stems from
that our tools are a bit challenging to use, and the documentation is
somewhat lacking. Many tend to struggle to figure out how to do
something, and once t
21 matches
Mail list logo
