Package for libquoin-clojure
debian at babilen5.org
Thu May 16 15:12:10 UTC 2013
On Thu, May 16, 2013 at 13:40 +0200, Eugenio Cano-Manuel Mendoza wrote:
> If I'm not mistaken, Java libraries are distributed under the libXXX-java name.
> I think it would be ideal to follow this convention for binary packages as
> well, is clear enough to tell that a package is a binary clojure program by
> just looking at the package name (libfoo-clojure). For source packages
> UPSTREAMNAME-clojure looks sane enough (my opinion).
Yeah, exactly. I was not talking about binary packages at all. For those the
libUPSTREAMNAME-clojure naming scheme is perfectly fine. I was just a bit
confused to see git repositories of that name and would simply prefer iff:
* git repositories have the same name as source packages
* source packages use the upstream name, which we can suffix with -clojure
> Yesterday I tried to find out how exactly I'm supposed to use git for new
> upstream packages. I was apparently doing things right except that I didn't
> have pristine-tar enabled so git-import-orig didn't create the branch.
> What do you do? Do you create the tar manually and import or clone and
> create a branch for the debian patch?. I started to repackage scout properly
> (I think), I'll keep you posted on that.
There are many packaging styles and it gets more and more complicated if you
introduce version control systems into the mix. Lets forget about other VCS
for now and concentrate on git. While it is true that one could, in theory, do
everything in git and I would be interesting to learn a packaging style that
makes use of this, but I adopted a packaging style that is essentially based
on tarballs. I use git-import-orig to import the tarball, but forego the
tedious act of having to create an actual tarball by using "git-import-orig
--uscan" with a suitable debian/watch file. The result shouldn't be any
different from cloning, calling "git archive .." and importing the tarball
For this to work you, naturally, have to have pristine-tar enabled. I'll
attach my ~/.gbp.conf to this mail which might provide some inspiration. As
always I am not convinced that this packaging style is the best there is and
will ever be, but so far I have been happy with it.
I have to confess though that I *do* like packages such as awesome which uses
a branch for upstream and one each for unstable, experimental, ... but I would
have to spend some time on investigating this packaging style. Maybe Paul or
Gergely have any more insoghts into this or even are opinionated about a
particular style as well.
Wolodja <debian at babilen5.org>
081C B7CD FF04 2BA9 94EA 36B2 8B7F 7D30 CAF1 4EFC
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Size: 836 bytes
Desc: Digital signature
More information about the Pkg-clojure-maintainers