Re: [StGit] Debian packaging update

From: Sebastian Harl <sh@tokkee.org>
To: Daniel White <daniel@whitehouse.id.au>
Cc: "Catalin Marinas" <catalin.marinas@gmail.com>,
	git@vger.kernel.org, "Karl Hasselström" <kha@treskal.com>
Subject: Re: [StGit] Debian packaging update
Date: Thu, 28 Aug 2008 19:22:28 +0200	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20080828172227.GI1289@albany.tokkee.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20080823135855.1a7aafd4@whitehouse.id.au>

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1468 bytes --]

Hi,

On Sat, Aug 23, 2008 at 01:58:55PM +1000, Daniel White wrote:
> On Fri, 22 Aug 2008 22:57:02 +0100
> "Catalin Marinas" <catalin.marinas@gmail.com> wrote:
> > 2008/8/22 Daniel White <daniel@whitehouse.id.au>:
> > > Since it is now packaged by Debian is it still necessary to be
> > > maintaining Debian packaging?
> > 
> > This is mainly to make it easier for Debian maintainers. Someone might
> > also want to build a .deb package for a different version or flavour
> > of Debian.
> > 
> 
> I had been reading an article recently about packaging, and there was
> the suggestion that upstream having packaging caused headaches when
> merging new versions.

Including a debian/ dir in the upstream VCS usually should not be a
problem as long as it's not included in release tarballs. The main
problem _I_ see when the latter is not given (and I suppose that's why a
lot of people don't like it either) is that you'd get a really ugly diff
between upstream sources and the Debian packaging (the .diff.gz of a
Debian source package).

Imho, keeping a debian/ dir in the upstream VCS is a nice service to the
user and keeping it close to the "official" Debian packaging is even
better.

Cheers,
Sebastian

-- 
Sebastian "tokkee" Harl +++ GnuPG-ID: 0x8501C7FC +++ http://tokkee.org/

Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little Temporary
Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety.         -- Benjamin Franklin

[-- Attachment #2: Digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 189 bytes --]