[git-buildpackage] Bug#771215: git-buildpackage: please merge support for gbp pq-rpm

[Tzafrir Cohen]

On Fri, Jan 09, 2015 at 10:47:27AM +0100, Guido Günther wrote:
> On Mon, Dec 29, 2014 at 03:41:28PM +0200, Markus Lehtonen wrote:
> > Hi,
> > 
> > On 28/12/14 14:29, "Guido Günther" <agx at sigxcpu.org> wrote:
> > 
> > >Hi Markus,
> > >thanks a lot for the update!
> > >
> > >On Tue, Dec 16, 2014 at 10:09:15AM +0200, Markus Lehtonen wrote:
> > >[..snip..]
> > >> 
> > >> You can find a patch with updated unit tests attached. I also updated
> > >> and rebased my feature/pq-rpm branch in Github.
> > >
> > >Can you give a hint what --import-files will be used for? It's already
> > >a bit sad the we have different branches (packaging vs upstream) for
> > >the deb and rpm version and --import-files seems to try to
> > >mitigate this a bit?
> > 
> > Basically, yes. For RPM-only packages (i.e. only rpm packaging is
> > maintained) it doesn't make much sense to have the upstream source code in
> > the packaging branch, IMO. The source code from the packaging branch
> > is

Assuming you have a packaging branch (that is: not a native package).

> 
> Can you point me to a public repo that is RPM-only and one that is
> not. I'd like to better understand the workflows involved.

Most of the repositories under http://git.xorcom.com/ are RPM packages.
The cpbx ones are currently native RPM packages that currently only have
RPM packaging (may or may not change in the future). Packages under rpm/
are mainly packaging of external software. Of those, dahdi-linux and
asterisk are probabbly packages that got more packaging attention.

That said, those packages represent my ideas of using gbp-rpm, which may
be differet than Markus's.

-- 
Tzafrir Cohen         | tzafrir at jabber.org | VIM is
http://tzafrir.org.il |                    | a Mutt's
tzafrir at cohens.org.il |                    |  best
tzafrir at debian.org    |                    | friend