Hi Ian, happy to read your prompt response.
Am Mon, Apr 13, 2026 at 07:03:45PM +0100 schrieb Ian Jackson: > Hi. Thanks for trying to help with this package. However: > > > As usual you want dgit / tag2upload uploads, right? I'd happily do so > > if you confirm that this is OK. Since I'm used to pristine-tar which > > was needed to let Salsa CI run with new upstream version please let me > > know if this is possible with tag2upload meanwhile. > > Please do not use pristine-tar. I'm surprised that you haen't noticed > that I am strongly opposed to the use of upstream tarballs. See rant > below. I have noted this. As I tried to express my motivation was to be able to use Salsa CI with new upstream. Removing this branch should be cheap. I do not insist that this should remain. ;-) > I have rewound the salsa main branch back to the last upload. I put > your work on a branch tarballs-based-rejected. While I was there, I > renamed the main branch to `main`, for the usual reasons. > > Since Simon's git hosting server is difficult to reach because it is > being DoS'd by the "AI"/LLM/slop crowd, I have pushed a copy of what I > managed to fetch to Salsa as "upstream". I confirm I had problems reaching this server and thus used the upstream tarball. > Also I'm not sure I like the change of git workflow from > dgit-maint-merge(7) to in-tree quilt patches. After all, Simon takes > my changes and therefore there is in fact no delta when we merge. > I think we could sensibly change the source format to "3.0 (native)". Perfectly fine for me. > I looked at your git branch and I think I *would* like to take many of > those changes. However, there are some that I think we need to talk > about further. I don't think this bug report is a good forum for > that. Perhaps the best way would be Salsa Merge Requests. > > Please let me know how you'd like to proceed. Ohhh, that's perfectly simple: I'd love to see the package uploaded with Vcs fields pointing to Salsa - favourably the latest version to close this bug. > ... > However, this is a package of which I am the maintainer. As the > maintainer of this package I hereby insist that we base our work on > upstream git, not any tarballs. Sure. Just use what you prefer. I would have pointed d/watch to the Git repository if it would have been accessible. > I believe the Salsa CI pipeline can be made to work simply by writing > an appropriate gbp.conf (to specify the use of the upstream tag, if > there is one) and/or by making a suitable upstream/NNNN tag oneself, > if there isn't a suitable upstream tag already. I believe > gbp-import-ref can do the latter. I'd be happy to learn how to do this. Please simply choose the lowest effort way to update the package. Feel free to cherry pick from my commits - no need to keep my authorship. I'm interested in the result only and I see no reason in making more effort than needed for long MR discussions. In short: Just upload in the way you prefer most. Thanks a lot for your cooperation Andreas. -- https://fam-tille.de
