Re: New upstream version of velvet contains debian/ dir
On 12/09/2012 05:29, gregor herrmann wrote: On Tue, 11 Sep 2012 22:33:28 +0200, Tollef Fog Heen wrote: If the Debian maintainer uses the 3.0 format, the debian/ directory is magically removed from the upstream tarball anyway. Right, but it's still annyoing when importing into a VCS. git import-orig --filter=debian/ might help. -- Kind regards, Loong Jin signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Re: New upstream version of velvet contains debian/ dir
On Wed, 12 Sep 2012 17:20:17 +0800, Chow Loong Jin wrote: If the Debian maintainer uses the 3.0 format, the debian/ directory is magically removed from the upstream tarball anyway. Right, but it's still annyoing when importing into a VCS. git import-orig --filter=debian/ might help. Right, or adding it to debian/gbp.conf :) Cheers, gregor -- .''`. Homepage: http://info.comodo.priv.at/ - OpenPGP key 0xBB3A68018649AA06 : :' : Debian GNU/Linux user, admin, and developer - http://www.debian.org/ `. `' Member of VIBE!AT SPI, fellow of the Free Software Foundation Europe `- BOFH excuse #91: Mouse chewed through power cable -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/20120912094100.gd18...@colleen.colgarra.priv.at
Re: New upstream version of velvet contains debian/ dir
[Neil Williams] These are not native packages, they are expressly used by other distributions than Debian or even Debian derivatives - just because I'm on the upstream team / am the entire upstream team does NOT mean that I am justified in polluting the tarball released to RPM users with stuff which is specific to Debian. There are valid reasons to encourage upstreams not to ship debian/ in tarballs, but this one seems specious. Lots of projects ship RPM spec files, often multiple ones for specific Linux distributions. Neither spec files nor debian dirs are bloat on anything like the same scale as convenience copies of Windows DLLs. Sure, the debian dir in your tarball may give little benefit to most of its users. But does it really inconvenience anyone (other than the Debian maintainer)? Unless the debian dir adds more than, say, 10% to the size of the download, I would say it does not. Peter -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/20120911194421.ga3...@p12n.org
Re: New upstream version of velvet contains debian/ dir
]] Peter Samuelson [Neil Williams] These are not native packages, they are expressly used by other distributions than Debian or even Debian derivatives - just because I'm on the upstream team / am the entire upstream team does NOT mean that I am justified in polluting the tarball released to RPM users with stuff which is specific to Debian. There are valid reasons to encourage upstreams not to ship debian/ in tarballs, but this one seems specious. Lots of projects ship RPM spec files, often multiple ones for specific Linux distributions. Neither spec files nor debian dirs are bloat on anything like the same scale as convenience copies of Windows DLLs. As long as the debian/ directory is properly maintained, I don't really see a downside in shipping it upstream. Sure, the debian dir in your tarball may give little benefit to most of its users. But does it really inconvenience anyone (other than the Debian maintainer)? Unless the debian dir adds more than, say, 10% to the size of the download, I would say it does not. If the Debian maintainer uses the 3.0 format, the debian/ directory is magically removed from the upstream tarball anyway. -- Tollef Fog Heen UNIX is user friendly, it's just picky about who its friends are -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/87627kxpt3@xoog.err.no
Re: New upstream version of velvet contains debian/ dir
On Tue, Sep 11, 2012 at 10:33:28PM +0200, Tollef Fog Heen wrote: As long as the debian/ directory is properly maintained, I don't really see a downside in shipping it upstream. In the case in question it is a fork of a quite outdated packaging. Kind regards Andreas. -- http://fam-tille.de -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/20120911204735.gi14...@an3as.eu
Re: New upstream version of velvet contains debian/ dir
On Tue, 11 Sep 2012 22:33:28 +0200, Tollef Fog Heen wrote: If the Debian maintainer uses the 3.0 format, the debian/ directory is magically removed from the upstream tarball anyway. Right, but it's still annyoing when importing into a VCS. Cheers, gregor -- .''`. Homepage: http://info.comodo.priv.at/ - OpenPGP key 0xBB3A68018649AA06 : :' : Debian GNU/Linux user, admin, and developer - http://www.debian.org/ `. `' Member of VIBE!AT SPI, fellow of the Free Software Foundation Europe `- signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: New upstream version of velvet contains debian/ dir
[History of thread: http://lists.debian.org/debian-med/2012/09/msg00024.html and following Please stick to debian-devel when responding - reply-to set] Hi Charles, On Mon, Sep 10, 2012 at 04:30:38PM +0900, Charles Plessy wrote: I answer on debian-med only to avoid adding to the confusion. I also consider the mail at debian-med list as improperly placed because it does not have anything to do with the scope of the Debian Med team but rather expresses your opinion about how upstream could / should handle its source tarball layout in connection to available tools inside Debian. I wonder what other developers might think (reply-to set to debian-devel). If I relay on our official advise to upstream[1] the personal opinion you are expressing below is in contrast what the Wiki says. If others might share your opinion we should change the documentation. My opinion is that it has always been a fallacy to criticize upstream for having debian directories. Most problems with upstream debian directories are a consequence of upstream being unavailable to fix any bug at all, rather than something specific to this directory. In line with this, I also think that the approach taken in the 3.0 (quilt) format, to discard the debian directory completely, is a total regression. Luckily, we can use the format 1.0 when no other special feature is needed. The format 3.0 (native) is also quite handy. For the packages that I started and on which I am still a major contributor, I would like Upstream to include a debian directory in his source tarballs. Other developers may dislike it for their package, and this is a choice that I respect. I consider it reasonable if a package is team maintaines we should either stick to general Debian recommendations or override this in our team policy in case there might be reached some consensud about this. Kind regards Andreas. [1] http://wiki.debian.org/UpstreamGuide -- http://fam-tille.de -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/20120910093525.gd18...@an3as.eu
Re: New upstream version of velvet contains debian/ dir
Le Mon, Sep 10, 2012 at 11:35:25AM +0200, Andreas Tille a écrit : On Mon, Sep 10, 2012 at 04:30:38PM +0900, Charles Plessy wrote: For the packages that I started and on which I am still a major contributor, I would like Upstream to include a debian directory in his source tarballs. Other developers may dislike it for their package, and this is a choice that I respect. I consider it reasonable if a package is team maintaines we should either stick to general Debian recommendations or override this in our team policy in case there might be reached some consensud about this. Hi Andreas and everybody, For the package velvet: I created it. I sometimes use it. I uploaded it 14 times. I met the developer in the real life (5 minutes...). It has been some time I have been considering switching the source package to Git in order to track the upstream repository. I want to pull from them and send them patches. I found exiting to read that upstream maintains a debian direcory. I think that it is great, that it is fun, that it is rewarding, and that it will help Debian to increase its relevance in the field of bioinformatics. Upstream is responsive and I want to work with them. Others can have a different vision for their own packages. There is no need for a project-wide consensus there. The upstream guide on Debian's wiki gives an advice that is generic, but in the case of velvet, I volunteer to work directly from the Git repository, so it is not needed to ask Upstream to remove the debian directory from their tarballs. Cheers, -- Charles Plessy Debian Med packaging team, http://www.debian.org/devel/debian-med Tsurumi, Kanagawa, Japan -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/20120910095745.ge32...@falafel.plessy.net
Re: New upstream version of velvet contains debian/ dir
On Mon, 10 Sep 2012 18:57:45 +0900 Charles Plessy ple...@debian.org wrote: For the package velvet: I created it. I sometimes use it. I uploaded it 14 times. I met the developer in the real life (5 minutes...). It has been some time I have been considering switching the source package to Git in order to track the upstream repository. I want to pull from them and send them patches. Others can have a different vision for their own packages. There is no need for a project-wide consensus there. The upstream guide on Debian's wiki gives an advice that is generic, but in the case of velvet, I volunteer to work directly from the Git repository, so it is not needed to ask Upstream to remove the debian directory from their tarballs. I have multiple upstreams which I created, wrote 95% of the codebase and am the sole or primary uploader. I work directly in the upstream VCS but none of that is any reason to retain the debian/ directory in the released tarball. I've even moved some of the upstream VCS repositories to alioth.debian.org but there is no debian/ directory in the releases. I release the tarballs on freshmeat/freecode as tarballs without debian/ because non-Debian downstreams want to use the code. I don't package rpm specs files for those people, there's no-one on the team who understands rpm specs files. I package for Debian directly from the upstream VCS by simply applying the debian/ directory to the tarball. These are not native packages, they are expressly used by other distributions than Debian or even Debian derivatives - just because I'm on the upstream team / am the entire upstream team does NOT mean that I am justified in polluting the tarball released to RPM users with stuff which is specific to Debian. Upstream should remove debian/ directories for lots of reasons - including that the debian/ stuff is just bloat for anyone not using Debian to build it. Stop being lazy and be a friendly upstream to non-Debian downstreams. -- Neil Williams = http://www.linux.codehelp.co.uk/ pgpKoDV3v9qqs.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: New upstream version of velvet contains debian/ dir
On Mon, Sep 10, 2012 at 11:34:54AM +0100, Neil Williams wrote: Stop being lazy and be a friendly upstream to non-Debian downstreams. Charles is not upstream itself - he just gave an advise to upstream to diverge from what we usually propose and I wanted to check whether our advise remains valid and I might have missed something. Kind regards Andreas. -- http://fam-tille.de -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/20120910113242.ga23...@an3as.eu
Re: New upstream version of velvet contains debian/ dir
Andreas Tille writes (Re: New upstream version of velvet contains debian/ dir): On Mon, Sep 10, 2012 at 11:34:54AM +0100, Neil Williams wrote: Stop being lazy and be a friendly upstream to non-Debian downstreams. Charles is not upstream itself - he just gave an advise to upstream to diverge from what we usually propose and I wanted to check whether our advise remains valid and I might have missed something. Neil Williams seems to think that there is never a situation where it is better (or at least no worse) for upstream to include the debian/ directory. I disagree with that. While the presence of debian/ in upstream as usually not a good idea, I think there are situations where it's useful and helpful. I don't think this is something we need a project-wide agreement about, either. This is surely something for the maintainer and the upstream to negotiate about. Ian. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/20557.54637.668150.861...@chiark.greenend.org.uk
