terminology git repo

Ross Vandegrift ross at kallisti.us
Tue May 1 04:20:59 BST 2018

On Sun, Apr 29, 2018 at 01:39:42PM +0200, Andreas Metzler wrote:
> I have just played a little bit around in terminology's git repo, trying
> to import 1.2.0. 

Cool, thanks - I had some work in progress for 1.2.0 as well, but didn't get
through the lz4 patch.  I applied that on my updated debian/sid branch and
pushed to salsa.  I haven't had a chance to test yet.

> debian/README.source has some instructions but critical pieces seem to
> be missing:

Yes, those instructions are not so good.  gbp has automation to replace it but
I failed to update the README.source in terminology.  d/gbp.conf now uses
merge-mode=replace, and importing a new version is just:

$ git fetch --tags upstream
$ gbp import-orig --uscan

README.source in efl & e17 have more info, but those could be improved too.
Sorry for causing a waste of some time.

> I am also wondering whether it is worth the effort. Sure it sounds nice
> to have a git repo that contains but upstream and Debian git history.
> But is it worth the effort? Is there real benefit over just importing
> the tarballs? (Personally I usually even go for a debian/-only repo.)

With the better gbp workflow, I think the effort is pretty small.  It's been
useful to have everything in one repo when we needed to cherry-pick unreleased
fixes.  Upstreaming patches has also been easy.  But both are fairly rare, so
if you think it's too much burden I'm open to simplifying.


More information about the Pkg-e-devel mailing list