Re: f...@packages.debian.org Re: moving mg from salsa to github?
On 2/15/20 10:03 PM, Bernd Zeimetz wrote: So far I did not find a single upstream that was not able to understand a sentence like "Hi, my name is foo and I'm the Debian developer who is maintaining blubb in Debian". Thats correct. The maintainer for mg attached a new label 20200215 without hesitation, I created a tar file, imported it via gbp and pushed all to salsa. Thanx to all for your help Harri
Re: moving mg from salsa to github?
Hi Marco, On 2020-02-15 20:44, Marco d'Itri wrote: On Feb 15, Harald Dunkel wrote: I am maintainer for mg, currently on salsa. Problem is, upstream doesn't release tar balls anymore, but moved the code to github. I plan to do something like this for ppp, which now has a proper upstream git repository but no actual releases in a long time: mkdir /dev/shm/ppp/ cd /dev/shm/ppp rsync -aH .../ppp-2.4.7/ ppp-2.4.7/ cd ppp-2.4.7/ git branch -m upstream tarupstream git checkout tarupstream git remote add upstream https://github.com/paulusmack/ppp.git git fetch upstream git checkout remotes/upstream/master git switch -c upstream git merge tarupstream --allow-unrelated-histories git branch -d tarupstream git tag ppp-2.4.7+20191019 git checkout master git merge ppp-2.4.7+20191019 dch --preserve --version 2.4.7+20191019-1+1 "New upstream snapshot." cat << END > debian/gbp.conf [DEFAULT] upstream-tag = ppp-%(version)s pristine-tar = False compression = xz [pq] patch-numbers = False END gbp export-orig Cool, thanx very much. I have tons of this kind of self-made recipes in my doc folder. Very helpful. Harri
Re: moving mg from salsa to github?
On Sat, 15 Feb 2020, Harald Dunkel wrote: > I am maintainer for mg, currently on salsa. Problem is, upstream > doesn't release tar balls anymore, but moved the code to github. > No tags. > > How can I tell Salsa? Should I drop the upstream and pristine-tar > branches on Salsa and integrate the repository on github? Would > you suggest to move the debian part to github instead? intel-microcode went through this same problem, although it had nothing to do with salsa. Suddenly: 1. I had a debian-side upstream branch with full upstream history based on tarballs that I had built based on tarball-only releases over the years (make that a decade). 2. I had a new upstream-side upstream branch that would soon accumulate history, based on their brand new github repo. And they were two entirely separate trees, of course. No common origin commit. I fixed that using a carefully planned, manually adjusted merge (read the MERGE STRATEGIES part of the manpage for "git merge", especially the "ours" and "theirs" of the recursive merge). That gave me an unified tree that would allow git to do the right thing as far as future merges, diffs and cherry-picks were concerned. Obviously, I ensured everything relevant from *both* side of the merges was present on the merge commit result (and dropped whatever I didn't want). The result tree contents MUST be semanthically compatible with the history it creates, or things will go sour really fast. >From them on, I just merge from github upstream on a topic branch, adjust whatever is needed, and then merge the topic branch to master. Please look at the intel-microcode's history *graph* to undestand what I mean. It is on salsa: https://salsa.debian.org/hmh/intel-microcode As for tarballs, it really depends. I'd either generate those using git based on the upstream's upstream branch, or use the ones from a tagged github release from upstream, if one exists. -- Henrique Holschuh
Re: moving mg from salsa to github?
Hello, On Sat 15 Feb 2020 at 06:45PM -07, Sean Whitton wrote: > git remote add -f upstream https://github.com/hboetes/mg > git tag -s upstream/0+git20200215.1.3992db3 3992db3 > git merge upstream/0+git20200215.1.3992db3 > dch -v0+git20200215.1.3992db3-1 New upstream release. ... and then `git deborig` when you want to build source packages. -- Sean Whitton signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Re: moving mg from salsa to github?
Hello, On Sat 15 Feb 2020 at 02:16PM +01, Harald Dunkel wrote: > I am maintainer for mg, currently on salsa. Problem is, upstream > doesn't release tar balls anymore, but moved the code to github. > No tags. > > How can I tell Salsa? Should I drop the upstream and pristine-tar > branches on Salsa and integrate the repository on github? Would > you suggest to move the debian part to github instead? Looks like there are upstream release tags, but if not, what I'd do is tag upstream commits with pseudo-upstream tags and then merge those to my packaging branch. For example if you want to upload the most recent commit at the time of writing, git remote add -f upstream https://github.com/hboetes/mg git tag -s upstream/0+git20200215.1.3992db3 3992db3 git merge upstream/0+git20200215.1.3992db3 dch -v0+git20200215.1.3992db3-1 New upstream release. -- Sean Whitton signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Re: f...@packages.debian.org Re: moving mg from salsa to github?
On 2/15/20 3:14 PM, Geert Stappers wrote: > FWIW Consider to use email address m...@packages.debian.org for it. > >[...] > The idea is that it helps you to explain that you are maintainer > of the package in Debian. Hope this helps. So far I did not find a single upstream that was not able to understand a sentence like "Hi, my name is foo and I'm the Debian developer who is maintaining blubb in Debian". And if they fail to understand it... not sure if you should package their software. -- Bernd ZeimetzDebian GNU/Linux Developer http://bzed.dehttp://www.debian.org GPG Fingerprint: ECA1 E3F2 8E11 2432 D485 DD95 EB36 171A 6FF9 435F
Re: moving mg from salsa to github?
On Feb 15, Harald Dunkel wrote: > I am maintainer for mg, currently on salsa. Problem is, upstream > doesn't release tar balls anymore, but moved the code to github. I plan to do something like this for ppp, which now has a proper upstream git repository but no actual releases in a long time: mkdir /dev/shm/ppp/ cd /dev/shm/ppp rsync -aH .../ppp-2.4.7/ ppp-2.4.7/ cd ppp-2.4.7/ git branch -m upstream tarupstream git checkout tarupstream git remote add upstream https://github.com/paulusmack/ppp.git git fetch upstream git checkout remotes/upstream/master git switch -c upstream git merge tarupstream --allow-unrelated-histories git branch -d tarupstream git tag ppp-2.4.7+20191019 git checkout master git merge ppp-2.4.7+20191019 dch --preserve --version 2.4.7+20191019-1+1 "New upstream snapshot." cat << END > debian/gbp.conf [DEFAULT] upstream-tag = ppp-%(version)s pristine-tar = False compression = xz [pq] patch-numbers = False END gbp export-orig -- ciao, Marco signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Re: moving mg from salsa to github?
On Sat, Feb 15, 2020 at 05:33:51PM +, Ben Hutchings wrote: > On Sat, 2020-02-15 at 18:26 +0100, Geert Stappers wrote: > > On Sat, Feb 15, 2020 at 05:02:03PM +, Ben Hutchings wrote: > > > On Sat, 2020-02-15 at 14:16 +0100, Harald Dunkel wrote: > > > > Hi folks, > > > > > > > > I am maintainer for mg, currently on salsa. Problem is, upstream > > > > doesn't release tar balls anymore, but moved the code to github. > > > > No tags. > > > > > > > > How can I tell Salsa? Should I drop the upstream and pristine-tar > > > > branches on Salsa and integrate the repository on github? > > > > > > Yes. > > > > Euh ... > > > > > > Would you suggest to move the debian part to github instead? > > > > > > I think you should keep the packaging repository on Salsa, because > > > Debian contributors generally have accounts there while some do not > > > want to use (or are not allowed to use) Github. > > > > I do read that as the above 'Yes.' should be a 'No.' > > I'm interpreting "integrate" as "merge from". If it means moving to > Github, why would the *next* sentence say "move ... to github instead"? To me is packaging having a copy of upstream and its tarball releases. Hence I don't understand the 'Yes.' on "Should I drop upstream an pristine-tar" Anyway: I do hope that Original Poster has its question answered. Groeten Geert Stappers -- Leven en laten leven
Re: moving mg from salsa to github?
Hi Harald On Sat, Feb 15, 2020 at 02:16:27PM +0100, Harald Dunkel wrote: > I am maintainer for mg, currently on salsa. Problem is, upstream > doesn't release tar balls anymore, but moved the code to github. This is nothing uncommon. > No tags. So this upstream doesn't make releases but only provides HEAD. > How can I tell Salsa? Salsa is a git hosting. It does not care. > Should I drop the upstream and pristine-tar > branches on Salsa _No_. They refer to Debian releases, not upstream releases. > integrate the repository on github? "Integrate"? > Would > you suggest to move the debian part to github instead? Are you upstream? git is git, regardless of where it is located. Sure, some git hosting services give you additional functionality. But not for this case Regards, Bastian -- There is a multi-legged creature crawling on your shoulder. -- Spock, "A Taste of Armageddon", stardate 3193.9
Re: moving mg from salsa to github?
On Sat, 2020-02-15 at 18:26 +0100, Geert Stappers wrote: > On Sat, Feb 15, 2020 at 05:02:03PM +, Ben Hutchings wrote: > > On Sat, 2020-02-15 at 14:16 +0100, Harald Dunkel wrote: > > > Hi folks, > > > > > > I am maintainer for mg, currently on salsa. Problem is, upstream > > > doesn't release tar balls anymore, but moved the code to github. > > > No tags. > > > > > > How can I tell Salsa? Should I drop the upstream and pristine-tar > > > branches on Salsa and integrate the repository on github? > > > > Yes. > > Euh ... > > > > Would you suggest to move the debian part to github instead? > > > > I think you should keep the packaging repository on Salsa, because > > Debian contributors generally have accounts there while some do not > > want to use (or are not allowed to use) Github. > > I do read that as the above 'Yes.' should be a 'No.' I'm interpreting "integrate" as "merge from". If it means moving to Github, why would the *next* sentence say "move ... to github instead"? Ben. -- Ben Hutchings Any sufficiently advanced bug is indistinguishable from a feature. signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part
Re: moving mg from salsa to github?
On Sat, 2020-02-15 at 14:16 +0100, Harald Dunkel wrote: > Hi folks, > > I am maintainer for mg, currently on salsa. Problem is, upstream > doesn't release tar balls anymore, but moved the code to github. > No tags. > > How can I tell Salsa? Should I drop the upstream and pristine-tar > branches on Salsa and integrate the repository on github? Yes. > Would you suggest to move the debian part to github instead? I think you should keep the packaging repository on Salsa, because Debian contributors generally have accounts there while some do not want to use (or are not allowed to use) Github. Ben. > Every helpful comment is highly appreciated > Harri > > https://github.com/hboetes/mg > https://salsa.debian.org/debian/mg -- Ben Hutchings Any sufficiently advanced bug is indistinguishable from a feature. signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part
Re: moving mg from salsa to github?
On Sat, Feb 15, 2020 at 02:16:27PM +0100, Harald Dunkel wrote: > Problem is, upstream doesn't release tar balls anymore, but moved the > code to github. No tags. If you can get upstream to tag releases, then the "When upstream uses Git" section of the git-buildpackage manual will be useful: http://honk.sigxcpu.org/projects/git-buildpackage/manual-html/gbp.import.upstream-git.html -- |)|/ Ryan Kavanagh | GPG: 4E46 9519 ED67 7734 268F |\|\ https://rak.ac | BD95 8F7B F8FC 4A11 C97A signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Re: moving mg from salsa to github?
Quoting Harald Dunkel (2020-02-15 14:16:27) > I am maintainer for mg, currently on salsa. Problem is, upstream > doesn't release tar balls anymore, but moved the code to github. > No tags. > > How can I tell Salsa? Should I drop the upstream and pristine-tar > branches on Salsa and integrate the repository on github? Would > you suggest to move the debian part to github instead? > > Every helpful comment is highly appreciated > Harri > > https://github.com/hboetes/mg > https://salsa.debian.org/debian/mg Here are some example packages tracking git without release tagging: fonts-noto (cdbs with "classic" v4 watch file) json-js (mode=git watch file) jsbundle-web-interfaces (bundled tarballs with mode=git watch file) - Jonas -- * Jonas Smedegaard - idealist & Internet-arkitekt * Tlf.: +45 40843136 Website: http://dr.jones.dk/ [x] quote me freely [ ] ask before reusing [ ] keep private signature.asc Description: signature
f...@packages.debian.org Re: moving mg from salsa to github?
On Sat, Feb 15, 2020 at 03:00:52PM +0100, Harald Dunkel wrote: > On 2/15/20 2:44 PM, Peter Silva wrote: > > fwiw, looking at the repo on github. There are tags. They're > > just dates, Ideally one would get an idea of what the tags are from > > upstream, but you could just git clone using a tag. Also github > > allows you to easily get a tarball given a tag: > > > > wget https://github.com/hboetes/mg/tarball/20180927 > > > > Thats the most recent version in Debian. > AFAIR it was created before mg moved to github. > > I will try to contact upstream. FWIW Consider to use email address m...@packages.debian.org for it. You, maintainer of package `mg` should have TWO copies of this email. One through the mailinglist. The other because I have m...@packages.debian.org CCed. As test. The idea is that it helps you to explain that you are maintainer of the package in Debian. Hope this helps. Groeten Geert Stappers -- Leven en laten leven
Re: moving mg from salsa to github?
On 2/15/20 2:44 PM, Peter Silva wrote: fwiw, looking at the repo on github. There are tags. They're just dates, Ideally one would get an idea of what the tags are from upstream, but you could just git clone using a tag. Also github allows you to easily get a tarball given a tag: wget https://github.com/hboetes/mg/tarball/20180927 Thats the most recent version in Debian. AFAIR it was created before mg moved to github. I will try to contact upstream. Regards Harri
Re: moving mg from salsa to github?
On Sat, Feb 15, 2020 at 02:41:59PM +0100, Geert Stappers wrote: > On Sat, Feb 15, 2020 at 08:33:25AM -0500, Roberto C. Sánchez wrote: > > On Sat, Feb 15, 2020 at 02:16:27PM +0100, Harald Dunkel wrote: > > > Hi folks, > > > > > > I am maintainer for mg, currently on salsa. Problem is, upstream > > > doesn't release tar balls anymore, but moved the code to github. > > > No tags. > > > > > > How can I tell Salsa? Should I drop the upstream and pristine-tar > > > branches on Salsa and integrate the repository on github? Would > > > you suggest to move the debian part to github instead? > > > > > > Every helpful comment is highly appreciated > > > Harri > > > > > You could probably add the GitHub project as a new remote, then through > > gbp.conf (assuming you are using gbp) you can name a new branch as > > 'upstream'). Alternately, you could rename the current upstream branch > > as something else and then checkout the master branch from the GitHub > > remote as 'upstream' in your repository. You might also have to make > > some minor tweaks, but the above are the major steps. > > Please state some examples where that is done. > I'm not aware of any, else I would had given them. Regardless, gdp doesn't really care the source of its 'upstream' branch, nor its name if given in the configuration. Of course, if upstream is no longer releasing tarballs and Harald decides to track the GitHub upstream project as the 'upstream' branch in the repository where the Debian package is maintained, then the pristine-tar will probably have to go. But that seemed to be understood from the initial message. Either way, gbp is sufficiently flexible and configurable to be used in the way Harald describes. Regards, -Roberto -- Roberto C. Sánchez
Re: moving mg from salsa to github?
fwiw, looking at the repo on github. There are tags. They're just dates, Ideally one would get an idea of what the tags are from upstream, but you could just git clone using a tag. Also github allows you to easily get a tarball given a tag: wget https://github.com/hboetes/mg/tarball/20180927 On Sat, Feb 15, 2020 at 8:36 AM Geert Stappers wrote: > On Sat, Feb 15, 2020 at 02:16:27PM +0100, Harald Dunkel wrote: > > Hi folks, > > > > I am maintainer for mg, currently on salsa. Problem is, upstream > > doesn't release tar balls anymore, but moved the code to github. > > No tags. > > > > How can I tell Salsa? > > Question seen. > However I think the question doesn't an answer. > Please revolt if you think otherwise. > > > > Should I drop the upstream and pristine-tar > > branches on Salsa and integrate the repository on github? > > No. > > > Would you suggest to move the debian part to github instead? > > No. > > > > Every helpful comment is highly appreciated > :-) > > > The "problem" is "no more tarballs from upstream". > (As in: The problem is NOT that upstream moved to some git repo server.) > > It is completely fine to keep all the Debian stuff at Salsa. > > > IMHO boils the question of Original Poster down to > What, or which version, should be packaged, > when Upstream stopped doing releases? > > > I see three possiblities: > * Talk with Upstream about version numbering > * Choose a version number scheme yourself > * Ask for further advice > > > > Harri > > > > https://github.com/hboetes/mg > > https://salsa.debian.org/debian/mg > > > > > Groeten > Geert Stappers > -- > Leven en laten leven > >
Re: moving mg from salsa to github?
On Sat, Feb 15, 2020 at 08:33:25AM -0500, Roberto C. Sánchez wrote: > On Sat, Feb 15, 2020 at 02:16:27PM +0100, Harald Dunkel wrote: > > Hi folks, > > > > I am maintainer for mg, currently on salsa. Problem is, upstream > > doesn't release tar balls anymore, but moved the code to github. > > No tags. > > > > How can I tell Salsa? Should I drop the upstream and pristine-tar > > branches on Salsa and integrate the repository on github? Would > > you suggest to move the debian part to github instead? > > > > Every helpful comment is highly appreciated > > Harri > > > You could probably add the GitHub project as a new remote, then through > gbp.conf (assuming you are using gbp) you can name a new branch as > 'upstream'). Alternately, you could rename the current upstream branch > as something else and then checkout the master branch from the GitHub > remote as 'upstream' in your repository. You might also have to make > some minor tweaks, but the above are the major steps. Please state some examples where that is done. Groeten Geert Stappers -- Leven en laten leven
Re: moving mg from salsa to github?
On Sat, Feb 15, 2020 at 02:16:27PM +0100, Harald Dunkel wrote: > Hi folks, > > I am maintainer for mg, currently on salsa. Problem is, upstream > doesn't release tar balls anymore, but moved the code to github. > No tags. > > How can I tell Salsa? Question seen. However I think the question doesn't an answer. Please revolt if you think otherwise. > Should I drop the upstream and pristine-tar > branches on Salsa and integrate the repository on github? No. > Would you suggest to move the debian part to github instead? No. > Every helpful comment is highly appreciated :-) The "problem" is "no more tarballs from upstream". (As in: The problem is NOT that upstream moved to some git repo server.) It is completely fine to keep all the Debian stuff at Salsa. IMHO boils the question of Original Poster down to What, or which version, should be packaged, when Upstream stopped doing releases? I see three possiblities: * Talk with Upstream about version numbering * Choose a version number scheme yourself * Ask for further advice > Harri > > https://github.com/hboetes/mg > https://salsa.debian.org/debian/mg > Groeten Geert Stappers -- Leven en laten leven
Re: moving mg from salsa to github?
On Sat, Feb 15, 2020 at 02:16:27PM +0100, Harald Dunkel wrote: > Hi folks, > > I am maintainer for mg, currently on salsa. Problem is, upstream > doesn't release tar balls anymore, but moved the code to github. > No tags. > > How can I tell Salsa? Should I drop the upstream and pristine-tar > branches on Salsa and integrate the repository on github? Would > you suggest to move the debian part to github instead? > > Every helpful comment is highly appreciated > Harri > You could probably add the GitHub project as a new remote, then through gbp.conf (assuming you are using gbp) you can name a new branch as 'upstream'). Alternately, you could rename the current upstream branch as something else and then checkout the master branch from the GitHub remote as 'upstream' in your repository. You might also have to make some minor tweaks, but the above are the major steps. Regards, -Roberto -- Roberto C. Sánchez
