[pkg-go] Building golang-github-google-btree from its git repo

[Michael Stapelberg]

If building requires gbp options, you should ship a debian/gbp.conf which
sets them. I’m happy to amend the policy document to make this explicit,
but this was the intention all along.

Ideally, your GBP repository would look like any other repository in
pkg-go. That said, we haven’t quite standardized on a format yet I think.

On Mon, Oct 19, 2015 at 9:53 AM, Dmitry Smirnov <onlyjob at debian.org> wrote:

> On Monday 19 October 2015 08:15:37 Michael Stapelberg wrote:
> > Dmitry, note that the pkg-go team policy states that packages must be
> > buildable using git-buildpackage:
> > https://pkg-go.alioth.debian.org/packaging.html
> >
> > So, even if you prefer not to use git-buildpackage, please at least
> verify
> > before pushing your repository that it can successfully be built using
> > git-buildpackage (without having to specify any options).
>
> Thanks, Michael, I'm aware that repositories should be buildable with GBP.
> For compatibility with GBP I maintain "upstream" and "pristine-tar"
> branches
> using "gbp import-orig" command at the cost of additional effort that
> frankly
> I find quite uncomfortable especially for packages with bundled Godeps that
> needs to be removed during repackaging of orig tar.
> I do not like upstream files mixed with packaging in "master" branch so I
> prefer to keep 'em separate. I'm sure this layout is buildable with GBP as
> I
> verified it myself and I know that other teams (i.e. KDE team) use even
> simpler repository layout without "upstream" branch at all.
> Policy do not say that repository layout should allow packages to be build
> using GBP's _default configuration_. If having upstream and debian
> packaging
> together in "master" were a requirement the I'd probably maintain all my
> packages in collab-maint.
> Having said that, I'm happy to use GBP repository layout if any
> contributing
> co-maintainer strongly prefers so. That's exactly how we maintain Etcd
> package but I do not wish to go through all inconvenience for packages
> that I
> maintain single-handedly... It's not that hard to build a package even
> using
> GBP as long as "upstream" (and optional "pristine-tar") branches exist.
>
> I think there are already too many maintainers who do not know to build a
> package without GBP... :(
>
> Personally I find GBP workflow limited and overly complex. I tried to use
> GBP
> in the past but ended up spending a lot more time to do the same job
> without
> obvious benefits.
>
> --
> Cheers,
>  Dmitry Smirnov.
>
> ---
>
> The more false we destroy the more room there will be for the true.
>          -- Robert G. Ingersoll, 1902
>
> _______________________________________________
> Pkg-go-maintainers mailing list
> Pkg-go-maintainers at lists.alioth.debian.org
> http://lists.alioth.debian.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pkg-go-maintainers
>



-- 
Best regards,
Michael
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.alioth.debian.org/pipermail/pkg-go-maintainers/attachments/20151019/433998f5/attachment.html>