Bug#995670: What's the status of this ITP?
On 20/06/23 14:50, Nick Hastings wrote: IIRC when I tried to look at a "proper" packaging work flow using git there did not appear to be a "correct" way to do it. Multiple different approaches only quite briefly documented. Perhaps without much information about why particular things were done, and seemingly to expecting knowledge of the other approaches. Hey Nick, I think this might be what you are looking for: https://dep-team.pages.debian.net/deps/dep14/ Best, Abraham OpenPGP_0xF67DA33EE71DFDA9.asc Description: OpenPGP public key OpenPGP_signature Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Bug#995670: What's the status of this ITP?
On 20/06/23 14:50, Nick Hastings wrote: IIRC when I tried to look at a "proper" packaging work flow using git there did not appear to be a "correct" way to do it. Multiple different approaches only quite briefly documented. Perhaps without much information about why particular things were done, and seemingly to expecting knowledge of the other approaches. In Debian there is no one correct way of doing things. It's just a matter of taste and preferences. The git packaging conventions used by the ruby team are tried and tested and in my opinion pretty elegant. Anyways this seems like a good start. Best, Abraham
Bug#995670: What's the status of this ITP?
Hi, * Abraham Raji [230620 17:37]: > > On 20/06/23 13:54, Nick Hastings wrote: > > > As far as I know the d/copyright file covers everything. > > > > > Or is there a licensing issue here? > > > > I don't think there is a licensing issue. > > > > It is the specifics of the d/copyright file I produced. Please see the > > RFS bug for details. > > Will take a look. Thanks. > > > > > I have created a zig-team namespace on salsa and I've invited you there. > > > We can move the packaging work there as it will make it easier for > > > potential contributors to find it. > > > > I joined it. > > Great let's get the zig package there. Done. > > > Also is there any particular reason you are only committing the debian > > > directory? > > > > That is all that exists in the repo. Builds are done by downloading the > > source with uscan with the info from the d/watch file. I did try to look > > into keeping upstream in the same repo but I didn't find a clear path > > forward. So I just stuck with what I am currently doing since it works > > and from the documentation I have read is not "incorrect". If you could > > recommend specific documentation for this I can have a look. > > I do find the ruby team's approach to be very nice here. Adding link > to a sample ruby package for reference[0]. The approach is to keep > the upstream files and tar ball deltas in separate branches (upstream > and pristine-tar). The tooling makes maintaining this pretty seamless. I see. I'll try to have a look. > Please take a look at these page for more information: - > https://wiki.debian.org/SimplePackagingTutorial - > https://wiki.abrahamraji.in/simple-packaging-tutorial.html I'm familiar with this level of packaging. IIRC when I tried to look at a "proper" packaging work flow using git there did not appear to be a "correct" way to do it. Multiple different approaches only quite briefly documented. Perhaps without much information about why particular things were done, and seemingly to expecting knowledge of the other approaches. Cheers, Nick. > [0]: https://salsa.debian.org/ruby-team/atig
Bug#995670: What's the status of this ITP?
On 20/06/23 13:54, Nick Hastings wrote: As far as I know the d/copyright file covers everything. Or is there a licensing issue here? I don't think there is a licensing issue. It is the specifics of the d/copyright file I produced. Please see the RFS bug for details. Will take a look. Thanks. I have created a zig-team namespace on salsa and I've invited you there. We can move the packaging work there as it will make it easier for potential contributors to find it. I joined it. Great let's get the zig package there. Also is there any particular reason you are only committing the debian directory? That is all that exists in the repo. Builds are done by downloading the source with uscan with the info from the d/watch file. I did try to look into keeping upstream in the same repo but I didn't find a clear path forward. So I just stuck with what I am currently doing since it works and from the documentation I have read is not "incorrect". If you could recommend specific documentation for this I can have a look. I do find the ruby team's approach to be very nice here. Adding link to a sample ruby package for reference[0]. The approach is to keep the upstream files and tar ball deltas in separate branches (upstream and pristine-tar). The tooling makes maintaining this pretty seamless. Please take a look at these page for more information: - https://wiki.debian.org/SimplePackagingTutorial - https://wiki.abrahamraji.in/simple-packaging-tutorial.html [0]: https://salsa.debian.org/ruby-team/atig Best, Abraham
Bug#995670: What's the status of this ITP?
Hi, * Abraham Raji [230620 16:53]: > > On 20/06/23 04:48, Nick Hastings wrote: > > There was some progress and some interest from a potential sponsor but > > it seems that the copyright file has become a road block. > > What exactly is the roadblock? Is it just a matter of going through each > of the files and adding the entries? As far as I know the d/copyright file covers everything. > Or is there a licensing issue here? I don't think there is a licensing issue. It is the specifics of the d/copyright file I produced. Please see the RFS bug for details. > Asking because for the first we can always try and get more people to > help out. That would be nice. > > My package is on salsa: https://github.com/NickHastings/zig-debian Adding the correction here too: https://salsa.debian.org/nickh/zig > I have created a zig-team namespace on salsa and I've invited you there. > We can move the packaging work there as it will make it easier for > potential contributors to find it. I joined it. > Also is there any particular reason you are only committing the debian > directory? That is all that exists in the repo. Builds are done by downloading the source with uscan with the info from the d/watch file. I did try to look into keeping upstream in the same repo but I didn't find a clear path forward. So I just stuck with what I am currently doing since it works and from the documentation I have read is not "incorrect". If you could recommend specific documentation for this I can have a look. Cheers, Nick.
Bug#995670: What's the status of this ITP?
On 20/06/23 04:48, Nick Hastings wrote: There was some progress and some interest from a potential sponsor but it seems that the copyright file has become a road block. What exactly is the roadblock? Is it just a matter of going through each of the files and adding the entries? Or is there a licensing issue here? Asking because for the first we can always try and get more people to help out. > My package is on salsa: https://github.com/NickHastings/zig-debian I have created a zig-team namespace on salsa and I've invited you there. We can move the packaging work there as it will make it easier for potential contributors to find it. Also is there any particular reason you are only committing the debian directory? - Abraham
Bug#995670: What's the status of this ITP?
* Nick Hastings [230620 08:18]: > > My package is on salsa: https://github.com/NickHastings/zig-debian While that statement is true, the link is clearly not the intended one. https://salsa.debian.org/nickh/zig Nick.
Bug#995670: What's the status of this ITP?
Hi, * Abraham Raji [230620 06:38]: > > What's the status of this ITP? It seems like Nick is pulling a > considerable amount of work himself. I filed an RFS bug https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=1012286 There was some progress and some interest from a potential sponsor but it seems that the copyright file has become a road block. > I would personally love to see Zig in the Debian archives so I am > ready to volunteer some of my time towards the effort. My zig package is up to date with the current version of zig 0.10.1 and this version of zig can bootstrap. However, it seems that the next planned release of zig will not be able to bootstrap (in the usual sense). See for example https://ziglang.org/news/goodbye-cpp/ > I feel we can move the work for this package to salsa if no one has any > issues. My package is on salsa: https://github.com/NickHastings/zig-debian Cheers, Nick.
Bug#995670: What's the status of this ITP?
Hey folks o/, What's the status of this ITP? It seems like Nick is pulling a considerable amount of work himself. I would personally love to see Zig in the Debian archives so I am ready to volunteer some of my time towards the effort. I feel we can move the work for this package to salsa if no one has any issues. Best, Abraham
