Re: Updating Celery, Kombu, python-amqp

[Christopher Hoskin]

Dear Brian,

Thanks. I'm new to gbp pq, but beginning to get the hang of it.

At the end of 
https://wiki.debian.org/Python/GitPackagingPQ#Converting_git-dpm_to_gbp_pq
I think it would probably be a good idea to add instructions to
refresh the patches (and create the patch-queue). Something like:

gbp pq import
gbp pq export
dch -m "Refresh patches after git-dpm to gbp pq conversion"
git add debian/patches/
git add debian/changelog
debcommit

I found all of the patches were updated with the removal of a From: header.

Also, in https://wiki.debian.org/Python/GitPackagingPQ#New_upstream_release
you probably want to add --pristine-tar to the import-orig command.

Thanks for your help!

Christopher

On 14 March 2017 at 04:40, Brian May  wrote:
> On 2017-03-14 14:48, Christopher Hoskin wrote:
>
> For reasons of my own, I need to create a Celery 4.0.2 Debian package. This
> means also updating the Kombu and AMQP packages. As I'm doing this work
> anyway,
> my preference would be to share it with the World through DPMT.
>
> However, I notice that python-amqp has a lot of other reverse dependancies,
> including OpenStack, and that we're currently in a release freeze. I've also
> seen there's been some discussion about using the DEP14 branch/tag
> convention
> and switching to gbp pq.
>
> Would people be happy for me to start updating Celery and its dependancies,
> uploading the results to experimental, or should I keep my work to myself
> for
> the time being?
>
>
> As an uploader for celery, kombu, and python-amqp, I see no problem myself.
> I can't speak for other packages, and definitely I can't speak for packages
> not under DPMT.
>
> For now, I would suggest creating a debian/experimental branch, switching to
> gbp pq (as using non-standard branch names is easier with gbp pq), and then
> continuing. I have done this already for the python-mkdocs package.
>
> If you need any help, let me know.
>
>
>

Re: PyPI source or github source?

[Thomas Goirand]

On 03/13/2017 10:40 PM, Ghislain Vaillant wrote:
> Do you get rid of the useless dotfiles (gitignore, ci settings, tox...)
> or leave them alone then?

It is a battle that needs a lot of efforts for not so many rewards, so I
just leave them alone. However, I could probably just add a few
parameters to the "git archive" command within openstack-pkg-tools, so
that it would *always* get rid of them.

The issue I had was, however, with the .gitreview. Indeed, since the
packaging of OpenStack also uses Gerrit, the .gitreview file is needed.
That's not a problem with Stretch (since it ignores it by default), but
it was when backporting to Jessie. The solution is to add:

extend-diff-ignore = "^[.]gitreview$"

in debian/source/options, so that there's no error with diff in that
file when building (this isn't needed for >= Stretch).

Apart from that, no problem with other upstream files.

Cheers,

Thomas Goirand (zigo)

Re: PyPI source or github source?

[Brian May]

Ghislain Vaillant  writes:

> Do you get rid of the useless dotfiles (gitignore, ci settings, tox...)
> or leave them alone then?

So far .. they have never caused any problems. So leave them as is.

Think you can leave tox, that can still be useful.
-- 
Brian May