On Wed, Apr 10, 2013 at 09:11:05AM +1000, Craig Small wrote:
That was the part I didn't understand. What are people doing to solve
this generated files at release problem? I've solved this as upstream
and a Debian developer by having tarballs.
Run the 'dist' stages as part of the 'build'
On Wed, Apr 10, 2013 at 09:11:05AM +1000, Craig Small wrote:
On Thu, Apr 04, 2013 at 02:25:30PM +, Jeremy Stanley wrote:
makes a lot of sense. If your packaging workflow does not rely on
importing the contents of release tarballs, then for projects like
this you miss some content unless
On Thu, Apr 04, 2013 at 02:25:30PM +, Jeremy Stanley wrote:
makes a lot of sense. If your packaging workflow does not rely on
importing the contents of release tarballs, then for projects like
this you miss some content unless you re-run the same release
scripts post-facto.
That was the
On Thu, Apr 04, 2013 at 11:07:04PM +0800, Thomas Goirand wrote:
Well, if you really want to generate these from Git, that's
also possible (though the changelog might be quite big, so
in some cases, I'm about to give up on that...):
gen-upstream-changelog:
git checkout master
]] Andreas Tille
Hmmm, you just show some more code as in your blog but this is not
addressing the three flaws of the workflow I was mentioning in my
initial mail. I'm honestly wondering whether I'm missing something
and these are non-issues.
They seem to just be deficiencies in the tools,
On Thu, 2013-04-04 at 23:07:04 +0800, Thomas Goirand wrote:
gen-author-list:
git log --format='%aN %aE' | awk '{arr[$$0]++} END{for (i in
arr){print arr[i], i;}}' | sort -rn | cut -d' ' -f2-
A better way to write the above could be:
gen-author-list:
git shortlog -nes | tr -s '
On Thu, Apr 04, 2013 at 09:38:36AM -0700, Russ Allbery wrote:
Jean-Christophe Dubacq jean-christophe.dub...@ens-lyon.org writes:
Yesterday, however, I just had the case of a project with no tarballs
(as the library I wanted to package is part of a larger project, it's
not released
On 04/05/2013 06:57 PM, Guillem Jover wrote:
On Thu, 2013-04-04 at 23:07:04 +0800, Thomas Goirand wrote:
gen-author-list:
git log --format='%aN %aE' | awk '{arr[$$0]++} END{for (i in
arr){print arr[i], i;}}' | sort -rn | cut -d' ' -f2-
A better way to write the above could be:
Hi,
On Fri, Apr 05, 2013 at 10:21:58AM +0200, Tollef Fog Heen wrote:
]] Andreas Tille
Hmmm, you just show some more code as in your blog but this is not
addressing the three flaws of the workflow I was mentioning in my
initial mail. I'm honestly wondering whether I'm missing something
On Sat, 2013-04-06 at 04:40:00 +0800, Thomas Goirand wrote:
On 04/05/2013 06:57 PM, Guillem Jover wrote:
A better way to write the above could be:
gen-author-list:
git shortlog -nes | tr -s ' '| cut -f2-
which in addition will fix up the authors using any .mailmap rules.
Though
Hi,
as a non-regular planet reader I'd like to move the discussion here. I
have read the following blog entries
[1] http://joeyh.name/blog/entry/upstream_git_repositories/
[2] http://www.eyrie.org/~eagle/journal/2013-04/001.html
[3] http://thomas.goirand.fr/blog/?p=94
I personally would
On 04/04/2013 16:00, Andreas Tille wrote:
Hi,
as a non-regular planet reader I'd like to move the discussion here. I
have read the following blog entries
[1] http://joeyh.name/blog/entry/upstream_git_repositories/
[2] http://www.eyrie.org/~eagle/journal/2013-04/001.html
[3]
On 2013-04-04 16:00:34 +0200 (+0200), Andreas Tille wrote:
[...]
I can not see how Joey[1] and Daniel[3] would solve these problem when
they are not interested in upstream tarball releases any more.
It's worth pointing out, packagers should not assume just because an
upstream uses a VCS with
On 04/04/2013 10:25 PM, Jeremy Stanley wrote:
On 2013-04-04 16:00:34 +0200 (+0200), Andreas Tille wrote:
[...]
I can not see how Joey[1] and Daniel[3] would solve these problem when
they are not interested in upstream tarball releases any more.
It's worth pointing out, packagers should not
On Thu, Apr 04, 2013 at 04:11:31PM +0200, Jean-Christophe Dubacq wrote:
Yesterday, however, I just had the case of a project with no
tarballs (as the library I wanted to package is part of a larger
project, it's not released independently). I stumbled (too long) on
having a good workflow for
Jean-Christophe Dubacq jean-christophe.dub...@ens-lyon.org writes:
Yesterday, however, I just had the case of a project with no tarballs
(as the library I wanted to package is part of a larger project, it's
not released independently). I stumbled (too long) on having a good
workflow for this
On 04/05/2013 12:38 AM, Russ Allbery wrote:
Jean-Christophe Dubacq jean-christophe.dub...@ens-lyon.org writes:
Yesterday, however, I just had the case of a project with no tarballs
(as the library I wanted to package is part of a larger project, it's
not released independently). I stumbled
Thomas Goirand z...@debian.org writes:
On 04/05/2013 12:38 AM, Russ Allbery wrote:
Using git archive to generate a tarball from upstream is something that
I do in some cases as well. It all depends on upstream's release
process. I default to using released tarballs if they exist and are
On Thu, Apr 04, 2013 at 12:07:42PM -0700, Russ Allbery wrote:
Since the Debian archive needs the tarballs *anyway*, the small amount
of additional work required to use the upstream release tarballs so that
we're obviously consistent seems worth it.
FSVO small.
It's easy when the tarball is
Andrey Rahmatullin w...@wrar.name writes:
On Thu, Apr 04, 2013 at 12:07:42PM -0700, Russ Allbery wrote:
Since the Debian archive needs the tarballs *anyway*, the small amount
of additional work required to use the upstream release tarballs so
that we're obviously consistent seems worth it.
On 4 Apr 2013, at 20:16, Andrey Rahmatullin w...@wrar.name wrote:
otherwise the workflow becomes clumsier
Just to be clear, did you read Russ' blog - are you referring to the merge
trick he uses in his workflow for this purpose?
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to
On Thu, Apr 04, 2013 at 08:21:44PM +0100, Jonathan Dowland wrote:
otherwise the workflow becomes clumsier
Just to be clear, did you read Russ' blog - are you referring to the merge
trick he uses in his workflow for this purpose?
I've even owned the bug report that led to the Russ's approach
22 matches
Mail list logo
