On Nov 03, 2016, at 08:36 PM, Julien Muchembled wrote: >I'm used to gbp. I don't know git-dpm (or I forgot after seeing I would not >like?)
git-dpm is usually pretty easy, but it's really only used in a few cases, such as importing a new upstream, managing the patch stack, and tagging. We document the team's use cases pretty well so you don't even really have to remember much: https://wiki.debian.org/Python/GitPackaging#New_upstream_release For a lot of other package management tasks (e.g. building source packages, cloning, pulling, etc.), gbp works just fine. That said, we know git-dpm has not been developed in a very long time, and is for all intents and purposes, abandonware. It works, so I don't think there's a huge urgency to get rid of it (obviously, since we haven't ;) but it should be in our long-term team goals to move away from it. >Not sure if all python-modules repositories are like persistent, but for me, >mixing Debian work with imported tarballs in the same branch is >terrible. When possible, I prefer to fork the upstream repository, otherwise >no upstream source at all. You're not alone, but I think that's still a minority opinion in the team. Our packages are so tightly integrated with PyPI, and source tarballs are such an ingrained aspect of that service, that a pristine-tar based approach for team packages still makes sense, IMHO. Cheers, -Barry