Thanks for your reply. Answers inline: On Mon, Nov 6, 2017 at 8:59 AM, Guido Günther <a...@sigxcpu.org> wrote: > Hi, > On Tue, Oct 31, 2017 at 05:24:05PM +0100, Michael Stapelberg wrote: >> Hi Guido, >> >> The pkg-go team is currently discussing changes to its workflow, and >> we’d be interested in resolving this feature request. > > Can you provide a pointer to the discussion?
Have a look at https://lists.alioth.debian.org/pipermail/pkg-go-maintainers/Week-of-Mon-20171016/015809.html > >> >> Guido Günther <a...@sigxcpu.org> writes: >> > I would rather do this with a dfsg-clean branch. You delete once and >> > then use git tools from there on. >> >> Searching for how dfsg-clean branches should be named, I found >> https://honk.sigxcpu.org/projects/git-buildpackage/manual-html/gbp.branch.naming.html, >> which recommends “dfsg/latest”. >> >> However, my reading of section “About repacked upstream sources” of >> http://dep.debian.net/deps/dep14/ directly contradicts the above advice: >> DEP14 says upstream/* should contain the repackaged files. >> >> How do we reconcile this apparent contradiction? > > Since gbp makes no assumptions on this I'm happy to update the docs. How > would we call the non-filtered branch then "nondfsg/latest"? When we > base our packaging on upstream git we'll likely use upstream's branch > name but in case of tarballs we should provide a good recommendation. Just to make sure we’re talking about the same thing: the branch you’re asking for naming recommendations is currently called “upstream”, yes? If yes, then I don’t particularly like the name “nondfsg/latest”, as it is a double-negative, but describes a very common case. Why not keep calling it “upstream”, or “upstream/latest” if symmetry is desired? > >> >> It would be great if gbp could produce the 1.2.3+dfsg tag itself by >> >> reading debian/copyright and excluding the Files-Excluded: files. >> > >> > If somebody comes up with a clean patch I'm happy to merge that. >> >> Which part of gbp specifically should be patched here? AFAICT, there is >> no command which pulls a new version from upstream yet. Should one be >> added? What should it be called? > > My first reaction was to teach gbp import-orig to have a > > gbp import-orig "git-ref" > > mode that would do the right thing but I now think having > > gbp update "git-ref" > > that > > - does the excluding and tagging if necessary > - merges to the debian branch > > is better. We need to make sure that gbp import-orig's filtering (using > the --filter command line or filter= gbp.conf option) stays in sync with > what we do so we don't have on tool using --filter= and the other one > parsing debian/changelog. You’re saying gbp import-orig and gbp update should both support the same filter option, in additon to d/copyright, yes? > > If somebody comes up with a better name than "update" that's all fine. “update” is a rather generic term. Given that the underlying git operation is “git pull”, how about “gbp pull-upstream”? -- Best regards, Michael
