Bug#1007108: Fwd: ITP: qpwgraph -- User interface for controlling the PipeWire Graph
Hi Chris, Le sam. 12 mars 2022 à 11:39, Christopher Obbard a écrit : > > > - salsa-ci.yml is not needed anymore as we can directly use the config > > file from the salsa team: > >> https://salsa.debian.org/salsa-ci-team/pipeline/blob/master/README.md#basic-use > > Right, I initially used dh_make which generated that salsa-ci.yml file. > I've now removed it from the repo. > > Do you think it is worth opening a bug/merge request there to either > remove the generated file or add a comment about it not being needed any > more? This file can be useful is you want to custom the salsa pipeline, but keeping the default one is not needed. dh_make is doing the right thing by proposing a template of the pipeline config file. > > - Is there a specific reason to target the upstream dev website > > instead of the gitlab repo in the d/watch file? I guess he can forget > > to update it contrary to its gitlab repo. > > I did think about that, but most other packages I have seen target the > upstream's website in the watch file. > > For the record, the upstream tarball on the author's website doesn't > include the gitlab-ci file or some other bits, so they're not the same > archive as what you would download from gitlab. Okay it is up to you :-) Targeting github or gitlab is not a problem, a lot of packages do it. > > - The history of your master and upstream branches is uncommon, I > > think you cloned the upstream repo and then imported the upstream > > tarball with gbp? It would be cleaner to just create these branches > > using gbp import-orig. > > Right, I wanted to experiment with keeping the upstream git history > (like the pipewire packaging) rather than just importing all of the > files in a single commit like how import-orig would in the usual case. I > did that by: > > $ git init > $ git remote add upstream g...@gitlab.freedesktop.org:rncbc/qpwgraph.git > $ git checkout -b upstream v0.2.2 > $ gbp import-orig --upstream-vcs-tag v0.2.2 --pristine-tar > ../qpwgraph-0.2.2.tar.gz Both way are fine, it is up to the preferences of the maintainer or to the team policy. If you want to keep the upstream git history, you don't need to use gbp import-orig, this modifies the upstream branch and we should not do that :-). But, you can populate the pristine-tar branch with: $ pristine-tar commit ../qpwgraph-0.2.2.tar.gz I just sent the package to the NEW queue. Thanks for your work! Best, Dylan
Bug#1007108: Fwd: ITP: qpwgraph -- User interface for controlling the PipeWire Graph
Hi Dylan, On 11/03/2022 21:55, Dylan Aïssi wrote: I had a look at it and of course it is good, nothing that could prevent me to upload it. Thank you for looking, your nitpicks are appreciated, since it helps me to become a better packager! - salsa-ci.yml is not needed anymore as we can directly use the config file from the salsa team: https://salsa.debian.org/salsa-ci-team/pipeline/blob/master/README.md#basic-use Right, I initially used dh_make which generated that salsa-ci.yml file. I've now removed it from the repo. Do you think it is worth opening a bug/merge request there to either remove the generated file or add a comment about it not being needed any more? - If you plan to maintain this package under the umbrella of the Debian Multimedia Team, you need to move the git repo under the team namespace and update the d/control fields accordingly. Just created a repo for you: salsa.debian.org:multimedia-team/qpwgraph.git I've pushed the source there, thanks! - Is there a specific reason to target the upstream dev website instead of the gitlab repo in the d/watch file? I guess he can forget to update it contrary to its gitlab repo. I did think about that, but most other packages I have seen target the upstream's website in the watch file. For the record, the upstream tarball on the author's website doesn't include the gitlab-ci file or some other bits, so they're not the same archive as what you would download from gitlab. - The history of your master and upstream branches is uncommon, I think you cloned the upstream repo and then imported the upstream tarball with gbp? It would be cleaner to just create these branches using gbp import-orig. Right, I wanted to experiment with keeping the upstream git history (like the pipewire packaging) rather than just importing all of the files in a single commit like how import-orig would in the usual case. I did that by: $ git init $ git remote add upstream g...@gitlab.freedesktop.org:rncbc/qpwgraph.git $ git checkout -b upstream v0.2.2 $ gbp import-orig --upstream-vcs-tag v0.2.2 --pristine-tar ../qpwgraph-0.2.2.tar.gz I have recreated those branches using import-orig without the git history, so hopefully it is a bit clearer now. Thanks! Chris
Bug#1007108: Fwd: ITP: qpwgraph -- User interface for controlling the PipeWire Graph
Hi Chris, Thanks for your packaging! I had a look at it and of course it is good, nothing that could prevent me to upload it. Just to nitpick: - salsa-ci.yml is not needed anymore as we can directly use the config file from the salsa team: > https://salsa.debian.org/salsa-ci-team/pipeline/blob/master/README.md#basic-use - If you plan to maintain this package under the umbrella of the Debian Multimedia Team, you need to move the git repo under the team namespace and update the d/control fields accordingly. Just created a repo for you: > salsa.debian.org:multimedia-team/qpwgraph.git - Is there a specific reason to target the upstream dev website instead of the gitlab repo in the d/watch file? I guess he can forget to update it contrary to its gitlab repo. - The history of your master and upstream branches is uncommon, I think you cloned the upstream repo and then imported the upstream tarball with gbp? It would be cleaner to just create these branches using gbp import-orig. Best, Dylan
