Re: git 0.99.9: Subversion importer breaks RPM generation (rpmbuild bug)
From: Horst von Brand <hidden>
Date: 2016-06-15 22:42:10
Junio C Hamano [off-list ref] wrote: [...]
I do not know much about how things are done in the RPM world, but is there a concept of "the upstream" vs "packaging maintainer" there? IOW, are the majority of RPM binary packages done by the upstream maintainer?
No, they aren't. RPM is set up so you can take the vanilla upstream package and add local patches, special configuration, ... at will downstream.
I am currently generating i386 RPMs and i386 debs myself but I am not particularly proud of the current setup. I do not have an RPM based machine that I can install the result myself to test (which is what started this thread). Since I am not a Debian developer (and I do not particularly wish to become one myself), the debs I generate will not be official anyway. Personally I'd be happier if I can just lose rpm and deb targets from the "upstream" Makefile (git-core.spec file and debian/ subdirectory as well while we are at it), ask "packaging maintainers" to pull from kernel.org/ tree and do RPMs and Debs outside.
Please keep the git-core.spec file, it is useful to be able to build RPMs directly from the tarball. [...]
One thing we could do without breaking much of the current arrangement is to have a team of people to help porting for major packaging formats (RPMs and Debs mostly but I know we have OpenBSD and Darwin people here too), and ask them to feed me the updates to rpm/deb/whatever target in the Makefile as needed. Especially before a major release I could ask them to test things out and generate binary packages, perhaps taken out of the tip of the master branch, or even another "for-porters" branch for this purpose.
Good idea. Will build RPMs regularly then. -- Dr. Horst H. von Brand User #22616 counter.li.org Departamento de Informatica Fono: +56 32 654431 Universidad Tecnica Federico Santa Maria +56 32 654239 Casilla 110-V, Valparaiso, Chile Fax: +56 32 797513