Update on sysvinit on salsa

[Benda Xu]

Thank you KatolaZ!

KatolaZ <katolaz at freaknet.org> writes:

> here is an update of my first experiments with importing a newer
> version of sysvinit in salsa.debian.org.
>
> First of all: the repo is at:
>
>   https://salsa.debian.org/debian/sysvinit
>
> The main branch is dgit/experimental. 

Does this branch has any relation with dgit(1)?

> As a starting point, I have merged Ben's repo with upstream 2.89 (the
> closest version to 2.88dsf). It turns out that all but one of the
> debian patches have been imported upstream, so if I did not make any
> gross mistake with refreshes, there is only one debian patch left
> (11_run_nologin.patch).

Brilliant.

> The package builds cleanly with gbp buildpackage, but you need to use
> --ignore-branch atm (the current debian-branch is set to master in
> gbp.conf).
>
> As I said, my intention is to actually bump the version to the current
> HEAD upstream (2.91), and try out a build for experimental. But before
> proceeding I think it would be better for the more experienced DDs
> here to have a look at the repo and provide any comment on its shape
> and/or on anything that should be amended. I guess I would find it
> natural to include an upstream branch in the repo (atm I just tagged
> the upstream/2.89 in the merged repo), but again, I need the advice of
> more experienced devs on this point.

You don't need to model after Petter's branch upstream/current.  That
practice was around 2010 and is considered outdated.

The following manual will inspire you,

   https://honk.sigxcpu.org/projects/git-buildpackage/manual-html/gbp.patches.newupstream.html

> For the merge, I had to use the standard dquilt-based workflow, since
> most of the patches did not apply cleanly and `gbp pq import` was
> complaining all the time. Perhaps there is a way to convince it, but
> this will do for a first PoC, I guess (and we have only one patch left
> atm, after all).

I took a look into the commit history. You have merged upstream 2.89
twice, once into experimental and once into experimental-new,
consequently you have merged experimental with experimental-new.  This
exposure of your local operation history is not ideal.  Would you mind
if I create a new branch cherry-picking your commits?

Cheers,
Benda
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 832 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://www.chiark.greenend.org.uk/pipermail/debian-init-diversity/attachments/20181026/5e18ce5a/attachment.sig>