Package for libquoin-clojure

[Eugenio Cano-Manuel Mendoza]

Hello all,

Before I push libscout-clojure again I want to make a few questions:

Do we have to add a debian/VERSION tag? I see it in robert-hooke but not in
slingshot.

Regarding the branches, I currently have master, upstream, and
pristine-tar. According to http://wiki.debian.org/Java/JavaGit this is
enough but I see that slingshot and robert-hooke has them as remote
branches. What am I missing?

debian/control source should be "scout", package name "libscout-clojure"
git repository name "scout-clojure". Am I correct?

Cheers,
Eugenio


On Thu, May 16, 2013 at 5:12 PM, Wolodja Wentland <debian at babilen5.org>wrote:

> 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
>       if needed
>
> > 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
> explicitly though.
>
> 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>
>
> 4096R/CAF14EFC
> 081C B7CD FF04 2BA9 94EA  36B2 8B7F 7D30 CAF1 4EFC
>
> _______________________________________________
> Pkg-clojure-maintainers mailing list
> Pkg-clojure-maintainers at lists.alioth.debian.org
> https://lists.alioth.debian.org/mailman/listinfo/pkg-clojure-maintainers
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.alioth.debian.org/pipermail/pkg-clojure-maintainers/attachments/20130518/327e0371/attachment.html>