Path: csiph.com!news.redatomik.org!aioe.org!bofh.it!news.nic.it!robomod From: Thomas Goirand Newsgroups: linux.debian.maint.python Subject: Re: a few quick questions on gbp pq workflow Date: Mon, 04 Sep 2017 00:00:02 +0200 Message-ID: References: X-Original-To: Jeremy Stanley , debian-python@lists.debian.org X-Mailbox-Line: From debian-python-request@lists.debian.org Sun Sep 3 21:56:24 2017 Old-Return-Path: X-Amavis-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.9 tagged_above=-10000 required=5.3 tests=[BAYES_00=-2, FOURLA=0.1, LDO_WHITELIST=-5, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no X-Policyd-Weight: using cached result; rate:hard: -5 X-Greylist: delayed 428 seconds by postgrey-1.35 at bendel; Sun, 03 Sep 2017 21:56:07 UTC Organization: Debian User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:52.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/52.2.1 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252 Content-Language: en-US Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/15154 List-ID: List-URL: List-Archive: https://lists.debian.org/msgid-search/b5265549-e260-da14-5a0b-494f57aad596@debian.org Approved: robomod@news.nic.it Lines: 39 Sender: robomod@news.nic.it X-Original-Date: Sun, 3 Sep 2017 23:48:53 +0200 X-Original-Message-ID: X-Original-References: <20170806153751.GW2409@yuggoth.org> Xref: csiph.com linux.debian.maint.python:9773 On 08/06/2017 05:37 PM, Jeremy Stanley wrote: > On 2017-08-06 10:44:36 -0400 (-0400), Allison Randal wrote: >> The OpenStack packaging team has been sprinting at DebCamp, and >> we're finally ready to move all general Python dependencies for >> OpenStack over to DPMT. (We'll keep maintaining them, just within >> DPMT using the DPMT workflow.) >> >> After chatting with tumbleweed, the current suggestion is that we >> should migrate the packages straight into gbp pq instead of making >> an intermediate stop with git-dpm. > [...] > > More a personal curiosity on my part (I'm now a little disappointed > that I didn't make time to attend), but are you planning to leverage > pristine tarballs as part of this workflow shift so you can take > advantage of the version details set in the sdist metadata and the > detached OpenPGP signatures provided upstream? Or are you sticking > with operating on a local fork of upstream Git repositories (and > generating intermediate sdists on the fly or supplying version data > directly from the environment via debian/rules)? > > I'm eager to see what upstream release management features you're > taking advantage of so we can better know which of those efforts are > valuable to distro package maintainers Jeremy, If you think what Alison described includes artifacts from upstream OpenStack, you're mistaking. She was talking about moving *general purpose* Python libraries only. The rest of will continue to use the workflow of generating orig files using "git archive". At least, that's what I understand from our sprint meetings, and that is if anyone (but me) in the team dares to start doing a little bit of packaging, which I haven't seen happening so far... Cheers, Thomas Goirand (zigo)