On Fri, 11 Feb 2011 09:46:13 +0100, Jérémy Lal wrote:
> if one manages two versions of a software :
> 2.0, the latest, which goes to experimental
> and 1.0.x, still maintained by upstream, going to unstable.
> What's the best way to name gbp branches ?
> I thought of something like :
> 2.0 1.0.x
> master master-1.0.x
> upstream upstream-1.0.x
> pristine-tar pristine-tar-1.0.x
> is there some common practice ?
I usually use something like:
master <> exp/master for, respectively, unstable and experimental and upstream
<> exp/upstream. You can achieve the latter by passing
--upstream-branch=exp/upstream to git-import-orig.
If you don't expect new upstream versions of 1.0.x for unstable (which AIUI is
not the case for your software), you could use "upstream" both for unstable
*and* experimental (i.e. just "git import-orig" in the correct order). You'll
just need to use some appropriate switches when building.
Now you can run git-buildpackage. Depending on the branch you're on (master or
exp/master), it will use that as "debian branch". Then you need to specify the
$ git-buildpackage --upstream-branch=exp/upstream
This is for building the experimental version, in case the upstream branches
If you use a unified upstream branch, i.e. only the latest code is available
there (2.0), and you need to build the unstable version, you can even use tags:
$ git-buildpackage --upstream-branch=upstream/1.0.x
I don't know if there's any better layout though
. '`. Debian developer | http://wiki.debian.org/DavidPaleino
: :' : Linuxer #334216 --|-- http://www.hanskalabs.net/
`. `'` GPG: 1392B174 ----|---- http://deb.li/dapal
`- 2BAB C625 4E66 E7B8 450A C3E1 E6AA 9017 1392 B174