packaging guide should suggest to try debcheckout or look at Vcs-Bzr

Bug #800768 reported by Didier Roche on 2011-06-22
12
This bug affects 2 people
Affects Status Importance Assigned to Milestone
Ubuntu Packaging Guide
High
Unassigned

Bug Description

We have some packages having debian/ only directory and not set to lp:ubuntu/<package_name>. It's the case for most of ubuntu-desktop package and some other packages where dx is upstreamed.

People contributing to ubuntu will follow http://people.canonical.com/~dholbach/packaging-guide/html/udd-intro.html#getting-the-source and so, propose the patch against the wrong branch. See here an example: https://code.launchpad.net/~amoog/ubuntu/oneiric/libqtbamf/lp-765915/+merge/65132

I discussed about launchpad automatically taking Vcs-Bzr in my last patch pilot report: https://lists.ubuntu.com/archives/ubuntu-devel/2011-June/033449.html However, it seems that for debian/ only packaging branch, it's not suited to set it them.

Can then the packaging guide suggest to check debcheckout or something else like Vcs-Bzr to check which branch is actually the packaging branch?

Tags: udd Edit Tag help
Stefano Rivera (stefanor) wrote :

> Can then the packaging guide suggest to check debcheckout or something else like Vcs-Bzr to check which branch is actually the packaging branch?

That's the case for desktop packages, but not most of universe. There are packages with Vcs-Bzr pointing at alioth (I maintain a couple of those).

We discussed this in #ubuntu-devel the other night:
http://irclogs.ubuntu.com/2011/07/06/%23ubuntu-devel.html#t15:28

Either we need to:
1. mangle Vcs fields, so only Ubuntu-specific Vcs-Bzr fields remain,
2. use XS-Ubuntu-Vcs-Bzr, fallback to UDD,
3. use Vcs-Bzr when "ubuntu" is in the version, fallback to UDD,
4. look for "ubuntu" in Vcs-Bzr, fallback to UDD, or
5. combine 2 with 3 or 4

1. requires no tool changes.
1 and 2 but wouldn't be usable until every desktop package was updated.
2, 3, 4 and 5 require patching debcheckout / another tool (pull-lp-source could be taught to do this)

I don't think the packaging guide should be updated until a choice is taken here.

I actually just filed Bug #809936 against UDD and devscripts which is related.

Jonathan Riddell (jr) wrote :

This packaging guide focuses on UDD.

This task should be done as part of bug 809925, "Provide overview over traditional packaging tools "

tags: added: udd
Changed in ubuntu-packaging-guide:
status: New → Confirmed
importance: Undecided → Medium

This is really a pet peeve of mine. It's also not uncommon to look at the sponsorship queue and see new contributors getting asked to rebase their changes on the desktop team (or whoever's) branch. We can probably make it a little more clear in the docs, but as Stefano notes this is really an issue with our tools/processes. I really wish the debcheckout (or maybe an Ubuntu specific tool) would "just work."

Perhaps this is something we need to discuss at UDS. I assume there will be some sort of UDD health check session.

Barry Warsaw (barry) on 2013-01-25
Changed in ubuntu-packaging-guide:
status: Confirmed → Triaged
importance: Medium → High
To post a comment you must log in.
This report contains Public information  Edit
Everyone can see this information.

Other bug subscribers