Re: package one package from a git repo with multiple packages
Hi Ali, Ali Mezgani writes: > Hello, > > What is the issue, if you need a new contributor I should do. What are > blocking phases? > Sorry, I missed your email and don't understand what you mean. Do you mean you'd like to package the "New Session Manager" fork (fltk port)? Thanks, Nicholas signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Re: package one package from a git repo with multiple packages
Hi, "rosea.grammostola" writes: > To be more precise: non-session-manager is forked. That fork > (new-session-manager) can be build without NTK. > > Non-Daw with non-sequencer/non-timeline/non-mixer isn't forked and still > needs the NTK toolkit (fork of fltk). > Hmm, maybe I should prioritise packaging non-session-manager in the hopes of warming upstream's heart[s] with what a great downstream we are? ...then ask nicely for a port of non-timeline and mixer ;-) Cheers, Nicholas signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Re: package one package from a git repo with multiple packages
Hi Rosea, "rosea.grammostola" writes: > Project has been forked, I've no interest in packaging it, but it should > be easier now with plain FLTK instead of NTK > > https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=965068 > Thank you for the link. Yes, and with meson replacing the waf evil :-) I took a quick stab at preliminary packaging and was successful, so I'll think about whether I have enough energy for a copyright review and claim the RFP if I decide yes. Regards, Nicholas signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Re: package one package from a git repo with multiple packages
To be more precise: non-session-manager is forked. That fork (new-session-manager) can be build without NTK. Non-Daw with non-sequencer/non-timeline/non-mixer isn't forked and still needs the NTK toolkit (fork of fltk). On 7/21/20 7:14 PM, rosea.grammostola wrote: Project has been forked, I've no interest in packaging it, but it should be easier now with plain FLTK instead of NTK https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=965068 On 7/21/20 6:23 PM, Nicholas D Steeves wrote: Hi Rosea, Sorry for the long delay in replying. I lost the thread and it took me this long to think "say, I wonder what happened with that new contributor who wants to work on NON?" "rosea.grammostola" writes: Nicholas and others, Ha, I didn't solve anything man. I'm probably the most unclassified person for the job. But hey, if no one wants to do it, you've to do it yourself isn't it? Which I can't so that's why I'm asking these 'stupid' newbie questions on this list. Sure there are all kind of obstacles, but I can't accept that these can't be tackled. For the record I didn't think any of your questions were stupid. I also commend your attitude :-) By the way, have you made any progress with this package? Arch Linux, Fedora, Kxstudio etc etc has the NON packages, but Debian not... yeah! :) Agreed, we really ought to, especially since we're one of the only distributions that still support i386, where a lightweight DAW like NON might be the only one that performs adequately. Of course, it will also be really useful for low-powered ARM devices after i386 is retired. Ok back to business. Because no one else was taking up this package, I came up with this plan, which might make it possible for me (with the help of others) to get NSM packaged for Debian. 1) package only Non-Session-Manager (NSM) first 2) package it without dependency on NTK, but on FLTK only 3) See if you can get Non-Daw with NTK later in Debian. All this is only possible if I can get people help me. So I decided to just write a e-mail to debian-mentor and see what happens. Please ask questions, or ask for comments on your plan of action (put "RFC" in front of the subject heading to notify people of this). The approach "if I can get people to help me" isn't likely to go anywhere, because it's almost always faster to do the work oneself then to review someone else's work, and it takes even more time to come up with a plan from scratch and explain "this is what I'd do, in this order, and this is why (for each step)". Please ask questions, especially if you're stumped :-) If this a case of not knowing where to start, that wouldn't be a stupid question either! Because everyone has to start somewhere... Cheers, Nicholas P.S. Please reply "inline" aka: "interleaved" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style P.P.S. I CCed you because it's been so long since the last post to this thread.
Re: package one package from a git repo with multiple packages
Project has been forked, I've no interest in packaging it, but it should be easier now with plain FLTK instead of NTK https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=965068 On 7/21/20 6:23 PM, Nicholas D Steeves wrote: Hi Rosea, Sorry for the long delay in replying. I lost the thread and it took me this long to think "say, I wonder what happened with that new contributor who wants to work on NON?" "rosea.grammostola" writes: Nicholas and others, Ha, I didn't solve anything man. I'm probably the most unclassified person for the job. But hey, if no one wants to do it, you've to do it yourself isn't it? Which I can't so that's why I'm asking these 'stupid' newbie questions on this list. Sure there are all kind of obstacles, but I can't accept that these can't be tackled. For the record I didn't think any of your questions were stupid. I also commend your attitude :-) By the way, have you made any progress with this package? Arch Linux, Fedora, Kxstudio etc etc has the NON packages, but Debian not... yeah! :) Agreed, we really ought to, especially since we're one of the only distributions that still support i386, where a lightweight DAW like NON might be the only one that performs adequately. Of course, it will also be really useful for low-powered ARM devices after i386 is retired. Ok back to business. Because no one else was taking up this package, I came up with this plan, which might make it possible for me (with the help of others) to get NSM packaged for Debian. 1) package only Non-Session-Manager (NSM) first 2) package it without dependency on NTK, but on FLTK only 3) See if you can get Non-Daw with NTK later in Debian. All this is only possible if I can get people help me. So I decided to just write a e-mail to debian-mentor and see what happens. Please ask questions, or ask for comments on your plan of action (put "RFC" in front of the subject heading to notify people of this). The approach "if I can get people to help me" isn't likely to go anywhere, because it's almost always faster to do the work oneself then to review someone else's work, and it takes even more time to come up with a plan from scratch and explain "this is what I'd do, in this order, and this is why (for each step)". Please ask questions, especially if you're stumped :-) If this a case of not knowing where to start, that wouldn't be a stupid question either! Because everyone has to start somewhere... Cheers, Nicholas P.S. Please reply "inline" aka: "interleaved" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style P.P.S. I CCed you because it's been so long since the last post to this thread.
Re: package one package from a git repo with multiple packages
Hello, What is the issue, if you need a new contributor I should do. What are blocking phases? Regards, On Tue, Jul 21, 2020 at 17:24 Nicholas D Steeves wrote: > Hi Rosea, > > Sorry for the long delay in replying. I lost the thread and it took me > this long to think "say, I wonder what happened with that new > contributor who wants to work on NON?" > > "rosea.grammostola" writes: > > > Nicholas and others, > > > > Ha, I didn't solve anything man. I'm probably the most unclassified > > person for the job. But hey, if no one wants to do it, you've to do it > > yourself isn't it? Which I can't so that's why I'm asking these 'stupid' > > newbie questions on this list. Sure there are all kind of obstacles, but > > I can't accept that these can't be tackled. > > > > For the record I didn't think any of your questions were stupid. I also > commend your attitude :-) > > By the way, have you made any progress with this package? > > > Arch Linux, Fedora, Kxstudio etc etc has the NON packages, but Debian > > not... yeah! :) > > > > Agreed, we really ought to, especially since we're one of the only > distributions that still support i386, where a lightweight DAW like NON > might be the only one that performs adequately. Of course, it will also > be really useful for low-powered ARM devices after i386 is retired. > > > Ok back to business. Because no one else was taking up this package, I > > came up with this plan, which might make it possible for me (with the > > help of others) to get NSM packaged for Debian. > > > > 1) package only Non-Session-Manager (NSM) first > > > > 2) package it without dependency on NTK, but on FLTK only > > > > 3) See if you can get Non-Daw with NTK later in Debian. > > > > All this is only possible if I can get people help me. So I decided to > > just write a e-mail to debian-mentor and see what happens. > > > > Please ask questions, or ask for comments on your plan of action (put > "RFC" in front of the subject heading to notify people of this). The > approach "if I can get people to help me" isn't likely to go anywhere, > because it's almost always faster to do the work oneself then to review > someone else's work, and it takes even more time to come up with a plan > from scratch and explain "this is what I'd do, in this order, and this > is why (for each step)". > > Please ask questions, especially if you're stumped :-) If this a case of > not knowing where to start, that wouldn't be a stupid question either! > Because everyone has to start somewhere... > > > Cheers, > Nicholas > > P.S. Please reply "inline" aka: "interleaved" > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style > > P.P.S. I CCed you because it's been so long since the last post to this > thread. >
Re: package one package from a git repo with multiple packages
Hi Rosea, Sorry for the long delay in replying. I lost the thread and it took me this long to think "say, I wonder what happened with that new contributor who wants to work on NON?" "rosea.grammostola" writes: > Nicholas and others, > > Ha, I didn't solve anything man. I'm probably the most unclassified > person for the job. But hey, if no one wants to do it, you've to do it > yourself isn't it? Which I can't so that's why I'm asking these 'stupid' > newbie questions on this list. Sure there are all kind of obstacles, but > I can't accept that these can't be tackled. > For the record I didn't think any of your questions were stupid. I also commend your attitude :-) By the way, have you made any progress with this package? > Arch Linux, Fedora, Kxstudio etc etc has the NON packages, but Debian > not... yeah! :) > Agreed, we really ought to, especially since we're one of the only distributions that still support i386, where a lightweight DAW like NON might be the only one that performs adequately. Of course, it will also be really useful for low-powered ARM devices after i386 is retired. > Ok back to business. Because no one else was taking up this package, I > came up with this plan, which might make it possible for me (with the > help of others) to get NSM packaged for Debian. > > 1) package only Non-Session-Manager (NSM) first > > 2) package it without dependency on NTK, but on FLTK only > > 3) See if you can get Non-Daw with NTK later in Debian. > > All this is only possible if I can get people help me. So I decided to > just write a e-mail to debian-mentor and see what happens. > Please ask questions, or ask for comments on your plan of action (put "RFC" in front of the subject heading to notify people of this). The approach "if I can get people to help me" isn't likely to go anywhere, because it's almost always faster to do the work oneself then to review someone else's work, and it takes even more time to come up with a plan from scratch and explain "this is what I'd do, in this order, and this is why (for each step)". Please ask questions, especially if you're stumped :-) If this a case of not knowing where to start, that wouldn't be a stupid question either! Because everyone has to start somewhere... Cheers, Nicholas P.S. Please reply "inline" aka: "interleaved" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style P.P.S. I CCed you because it's been so long since the last post to this thread. signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Re: package one package from a git repo with multiple packages
On Mon, Mar 09, 2020 at 09:35:17PM +0100, rosea.grammostola wrote: > > > If you just want to package non-session-manager, why not: > > > 1. Download the tarball from here: > > > https://git.tuxfamily.org/non/non.git/tag/?id=non-session-manager-v1.2.0 > > > (or the github mirror - whichever is best) > > That's just a snapshot of the git repo and so it contains all of the > > source. > > > quoting upstream developer: > > "It doesn't matter what the repo contains. Anyone who is telling you it does > it lying out of prejudice or ignorance. Look into git sparse checkouts if > it's really an issue. But you can also just 'rm -rf timeline sequencer > mixer" if the sight of those somehow offends thee. Or do what any sane > person would do and just ignore it. People are just making excuses. I've > already said that it's more effort than it's worth to keep everything in a > separate repos. It wasn't a decision I made lightly. With separate repos, I > have to package nonlib as a library (more work for me--nobody else will use > that lib, so it doesn't help anyone) and then update all the repos every > time I make a change that's in a shared element. It's also a hassle for > users who just want to build the whole thing... Now they have to checkout, > count them, six repos, and do a separate build process on each, just so that > a packager doesn't have to see the word 'timeline'... That's totally > unreasonable." Indeed, that's why my original suggestion was to package it as one source package. I'll ignore all of that "lying", "making excuses" etc. parts and assume it wasn't about anything I wrote. -- WBR, wRAR signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Re: package one package from a git repo with multiple packages
On Mon, Mar 09, 2020 at 11:02:03PM +0100, rosea.grammostola wrote: > > how did you > > resolve the NTK-fork dep and the waf evil? > > About he Waf evil, upstream developer told me this: > > "There was an issue a while I ago that I fixed related to how unique the > shipped WAF binary is. I think it should be in a good place now to use a > system-wide WAF as Debian prefers. That's a misunderstanding, Debian doesn't prefer system-wide WAF and there is no system-wide WAF in Debian: https://lists.debian.org/debian-devel/2010/02/msg00714.html > The problem with WAF and I think the > reason they bundle it the way they do is they they're constantly making > breaking changes (every time I've upgrade it, it broke something), so it's > hard to imagine that a system-wide WAF install work work for long before > something breaking and requiring everyone to change their wscripts. I guess > that depends on how closely Debian follows upstream on the WAF packages." Yup, that's why Debian discourages using WAF: https://wiki.debian.org/UpstreamGuide#waf > But if I understand it right, waf should be removed totally from the project > via https://wiki.debian.org/UnpackWaf It's not removing, it's unpacking. -- WBR, wRAR signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Re: package one package from a git repo with multiple packages
On Mon, Mar 09, 2020 at 03:11:04PM -0600, Nicholas D Steeves wrote:
> src:non (or src:non-daw) would generate
> bin:non-{timeline,sequencer,mixer,session-manager}. Andrey, is the
> simplest method still debian/bin-pkg-name0.install and
> debian/bin-pkg-name1.install + simple glob patterns, and/or do you think
> rules will need to iterate over the waf targets?
I don't know how does the build system for this software works. If you can
build and install everything in one step then .install files are
definitely the easiest way.
--
WBR, wRAR
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
Re: package one package from a git repo with multiple packages
On 3/9/20 10:11 PM, Nicholas D Steeves wrote: how did you resolve the NTK-fork dep and the waf evil? About he Waf evil, upstream developer told me this: "There was an issue a while I ago that I fixed related to how unique the shipped WAF binary is. I think it should be in a good place now to use a system-wide WAF as Debian prefers. The problem with WAF and I think the reason they bundle it the way they do is they they're constantly making breaking changes (every time I've upgrade it, it broke something), so it's hard to imagine that a system-wide WAF install work work for long before something breaking and requiring everyone to change their wscripts. I guess that depends on how closely Debian follows upstream on the WAF packages." But if I understand it right, waf should be removed totally from the project via https://wiki.debian.org/UnpackWaf which is a complex thing to do?
Re: package one package from a git repo with multiple packages
Nicholas and others,
Ha, I didn't solve anything man. I'm probably the most unclassified
person for the job. But hey, if no one wants to do it, you've to do it
yourself isn't it? Which I can't so that's why I'm asking these 'stupid'
newbie questions on this list. Sure there are all kind of obstacles, but
I can't accept that these can't be tackled.
Arch Linux, Fedora, Kxstudio etc etc has the NON packages, but Debian
not... yeah! :)
Ok back to business. Because no one else was taking up this package, I
came up with this plan, which might make it possible for me (with the
help of others) to get NSM packaged for Debian.
1) package only Non-Session-Manager (NSM) first
2) package it without dependency on NTK, but on FLTK only
3) See if you can get Non-Daw with NTK later in Debian.
All this is only possible if I can get people help me. So I decided to
just write a e-mail to debian-mentor and see what happens.
So far, so good.
Regards,
\R
On 3/9/20 10:11 PM, Nicholas D Steeves wrote:
Hi,
Rosea, thank you for working on Non! Out of curiosity, how did you
resolve the NTK-fork dep and the waf evil? If it wouldn't be too much
trouble, would you please generate bin packages for the full suite? I'm
personally interested in the Timeline, Mixer, and Session manager, and I
have a friend who would appreciate the Sequencer.
Reply follows inline:
"rosea.grammostola" writes:
On 3/9/20 2:11 PM, Andrey Rahmatullin wrote:
You can build each project independently.
It doesn't matter.
If you are able to split this repo into separate source packages, do it,
That's probably the best option then. But what if upstream doesn't want
to split it, how do I split it 'according to the Debian policy'?
Which steps should I take?
src:non (or src:non-daw) would generate
bin:non-{timeline,sequencer,mixer,session-manager}. Andrey, is the
simplest method still debian/bin-pkg-name0.install and
debian/bin-pkg-name1.install + simple glob patterns, and/or do you think
rules will need to iterate over the waf targets?
Re: package one package from a git repo with multiple packages
Hi,
Rosea, thank you for working on Non! Out of curiosity, how did you
resolve the NTK-fork dep and the waf evil? If it wouldn't be too much
trouble, would you please generate bin packages for the full suite? I'm
personally interested in the Timeline, Mixer, and Session manager, and I
have a friend who would appreciate the Sequencer.
Reply follows inline:
"rosea.grammostola" writes:
> On 3/9/20 2:11 PM, Andrey Rahmatullin wrote:
>>> You can build each project independently.
>> It doesn't matter.
>> If you are able to split this repo into separate source packages, do it,
>>
> That's probably the best option then. But what if upstream doesn't want
> to split it, how do I split it 'according to the Debian policy'?
>
> Which steps should I take?
src:non (or src:non-daw) would generate
bin:non-{timeline,sequencer,mixer,session-manager}. Andrey, is the
simplest method still debian/bin-pkg-name0.install and
debian/bin-pkg-name1.install + simple glob patterns, and/or do you think
rules will need to iterate over the waf targets?
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
Re: package one package from a git repo with multiple packages
On 3/9/20 9:30 PM, Andrey Rahmatullin wrote: On Mon, Mar 09, 2020 at 08:58:26PM +0100, Ross Gammon wrote: If you just want to package non-session-manager, why not: 1. Download the tarball from here: https://git.tuxfamily.org/non/non.git/tag/?id=non-session-manager-v1.2.0 (or the github mirror - whichever is best) That's just a snapshot of the git repo and so it contains all of the source. quoting upstream developer: "It doesn't matter what the repo contains. Anyone who is telling you it does it lying out of prejudice or ignorance. Look into git sparse checkouts if it's really an issue. But you can also just 'rm -rf timeline sequencer mixer" if the sight of those somehow offends thee. Or do what any sane person would do and just ignore it. People are just making excuses. I've already said that it's more effort than it's worth to keep everything in a separate repos. It wasn't a decision I made lightly. With separate repos, I have to package nonlib as a library (more work for me--nobody else will use that lib, so it doesn't help anyone) and then update all the repos every time I make a change that's in a shared element. It's also a hassle for users who just want to build the whole thing... Now they have to checkout, count them, six repos, and do a separate build process on each, just so that a packager doesn't have to see the word 'timeline'... That's totally unreasonable."
Re: package one package from a git repo with multiple packages
On Mon, Mar 09, 2020 at 08:58:26PM +0100, Ross Gammon wrote: > If you just want to package non-session-manager, why not: > 1. Download the tarball from here: > https://git.tuxfamily.org/non/non.git/tag/?id=non-session-manager-v1.2.0 > (or the github mirror - whichever is best) That's just a snapshot of the git repo and so it contains all of the source. -- WBR, wRAR signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Re: package one package from a git repo with multiple packages
Hi Rosea, On 09/03/2020 16:37, Andrey Rahmatullin wrote: > On Mon, Mar 09, 2020 at 03:20:26PM +0100, rosea.grammostola wrote: >>> You just need to create a source tarball that is able to build the project >>> you need. For that you'll need to find out which common files are also >>> needed. >>> You'll need to do it manually each time you need to upload a new version, >>> so I guess you'll want to create a script that helps with that. >>> There are no specific recommendations because this is almost never needed. >> >> First, thanks for your help! >> >> Wouldn't this be done most easily with git? >> >> - Git cloning the whole repository >> >> - Git remove the parts which are not needed >> >> - Do a git tag in that reworked repo, to make tarball? >> >> - Package from there >> >> ? > If after that you are going to merge the upstream repo master you'll get > conflicts for all changed stuff that you deleted. But whatever works for > you. > If you just want to package non-session-manager, why not: 1. Download the tarball from here: https://git.tuxfamily.org/non/non.git/tag/?id=non-session-manager-v1.2.0 (or the github mirror - whichever is best) 2. Extract the tarball. 3. Begin packaging in the extracted directory 4. Create a git repo & push the files into a Salsa git repo once you are happy you have something mostly working. It only makes sense to package from a clone of the upstream repository if you are (eventually) going to create binary packages for all the non-* applications in the one source package. You can always package the other applications separately by downloading their tarballs when you have the urge. Then each source package can use the debian/watch file to watch for new tarballs in the same upstream git repository. But if you prefer the git approach, then there are several ways you can package from the upstream git repository (including without a tarball). Some methods are listed in the git-buildpackage manual: https://honk.sigxcpu.org/projects/git-buildpackage/manual-html/gbp.import.upstream-git.html Keep going! -- Regards, Ross Gammon FBEE 0190 904F 1EA0 BA6A 300E 53FE 7BBD A689 10FC signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Re: package one package from a git repo with multiple packages
On Mon, Mar 09, 2020 at 03:20:26PM +0100, rosea.grammostola wrote: > > You just need to create a source tarball that is able to build the project > > you need. For that you'll need to find out which common files are also > > needed. > > You'll need to do it manually each time you need to upload a new version, > > so I guess you'll want to create a script that helps with that. > > There are no specific recommendations because this is almost never needed. > > First, thanks for your help! > > Wouldn't this be done most easily with git? > > - Git cloning the whole repository > > - Git remove the parts which are not needed > > - Do a git tag in that reworked repo, to make tarball? > > - Package from there > > ? If after that you are going to merge the upstream repo master you'll get conflicts for all changed stuff that you deleted. But whatever works for you. -- WBR, wRAR signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Re: package one package from a git repo with multiple packages
On 3/9/20 2:55 PM, Andrey Rahmatullin wrote: You just need to create a source tarball that is able to build the project you need. For that you'll need to find out which common files are also needed. You'll need to do it manually each time you need to upload a new version, so I guess you'll want to create a script that helps with that. There are no specific recommendations because this is almost never needed. First, thanks for your help! Wouldn't this be done most easily with git? - Git cloning the whole repository - Git remove the parts which are not needed - Do a git tag in that reworked repo, to make tarball? - Package from there ? Regard, \r
Re: package one package from a git repo with multiple packages
On Mon, Mar 09, 2020 at 02:26:49PM +0100, rosea.grammostola wrote: > > On 3/9/20 2:11 PM, Andrey Rahmatullin wrote: > > > You can build each project independently. > > It doesn't matter. > > If you are able to split this repo into separate source packages, do it, > > > That's probably the best option then. But what if upstream doesn't want to > split it, how do I split it 'according to the Debian policy'? > > Which steps should I take? You just need to create a source tarball that is able to build the project you need. For that you'll need to find out which common files are also needed. You'll need to do it manually each time you need to upload a new version, so I guess you'll want to create a script that helps with that. There are no specific recommendations because this is almost never needed. -- WBR, wRAR signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Re: package one package from a git repo with multiple packages
On 3/9/20 2:11 PM, Andrey Rahmatullin wrote: You can build each project independently. It doesn't matter. If you are able to split this repo into separate source packages, do it, That's probably the best option then. But what if upstream doesn't want to split it, how do I split it 'according to the Debian policy'? Which steps should I take?
Re: package one package from a git repo with multiple packages
On Mon, Mar 09, 2020 at 01:07:34PM +0100, rosea.grammostola wrote: > > > This git repo contains four packages, but I only want to package one. How > > > to > > > deal with this situation via git-buildpackage? (Upstream sources kept in > > > the > > > upstream branch and the the debian in the master branch) > > > > > > https://git.tuxfamily.org/non/non.git/ > > This doesn't look like a collection of separate projects but like one > > project producing several binaries. You need to package it as one source > > package. > > > You can build each project independently. It doesn't matter. If you are able to split this repo into separate source packages, do it, otherwise package them as one source package. -- WBR, wRAR signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Re: package one package from a git repo with multiple packages
On 3/9/20 12:56 PM, Andrey Rahmatullin wrote: On Mon, Mar 09, 2020 at 11:18:04AM +0100, rosea.grammostola wrote: Hi, This git repo contains four packages, but I only want to package one. How to deal with this situation via git-buildpackage? (Upstream sources kept in the upstream branch and the the debian in the master branch) https://git.tuxfamily.org/non/non.git/ This doesn't look like a collection of separate projects but like one project producing several binaries. You need to package it as one source package. You can build each project independently. ** Build a single project Typing: ./waf configure --project=[timline|sequencer|mixer|session-manager]
Re: package one package from a git repo with multiple packages
On Mon, Mar 09, 2020 at 11:18:04AM +0100, rosea.grammostola wrote: > Hi, > > This git repo contains four packages, but I only want to package one. How to > deal with this situation via git-buildpackage? (Upstream sources kept in the > upstream branch and the the debian in the master branch) > > https://git.tuxfamily.org/non/non.git/ This doesn't look like a collection of separate projects but like one project producing several binaries. You need to package it as one source package. -- WBR, wRAR signature.asc Description: PGP signature
