-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
On 08/06/2009 04:16 AM, Mathias Gug wrote:
Hi,
On Wed, Aug 5, 2009 at 6:23 PM, Stephen Gallagher<sgallagh(a)redhat.com> wrote:
>> On Wed, Aug 5, 2009 at 6:00 PM, Stephen Gallagher<sgallagh(a)redhat.com>
wrote:
>>> * Successful build on Ubuntu Karmic (working as of today)
>> Are you interested in having the debian packaging code (ie a debian/
>> directory) in the upstream branch (and tarball)?
>>
> That's something we could consider having in a /contrib directory in the
> tree. We already have support for building Fedora-compatible RPMs in the
> upstream repo, so I don't think we'd be likely to refuse a patch to
> provide similar for Debian.
Right. It would make more sense to have the debian packaging bits
directly in a debian/ directory at the root of the source code as this
is where it will end up anyway.
> However, I can't guarantee that the upstream
> maintainers will keep the Debian parts up to date if we change
> dependency requirements or similar.
It seems that it may make more sense to maintain the debian packaging
bits in a different branch. I've already setup an import of the git
branch on LP [1]. My proposal is to maintain the debian packaging
branch there as a branch from the git import - what do you think?
[1]:
https://code.launchpad.net/~vcs-imports/sssd/trunk
Yeah, that may ultimately be the best course of action. How often do you
intend to keep the trees in sync? Only on upstream releases, nightly
snapshots, or something in-between?
- --
Stephen Gallagher
RHCE 804006346421761
Looking to carve out IT costs?
www.redhat.com/carveoutcosts/
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Fedora -
http://enigmail.mozdev.org/
iEUEARECAAYFAkp63rwACgkQeiVVYja6o6O7eQCYjKuKkAc/EUgccTx1tlL3PYKU
AQCeLRThTNu+lOeF4WCLcnCC+gS7qHM=
=oauG
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----