On Thu, Dec 13, 2012 at 09:31:41AM +0100, Csillag Tamas wrote: > On Thu, Dec 13, 2012 at 09:26:02AM +0100, gregor herrmann wrote: > > On Thu, 13 Dec 2012 09:03:07 +0100, Csillag Tamas wrote: > > > On Wed, Dec 12, 2012 at 05:30:27PM +0100, gregor herrmann wrote: > > > > On Wed, 12 Dec 2012 16:17:15 +0100, Guido Günther wrote: > > > ... > > > > The problem is still that the name of the new tarball is only > > > > reported as a message by uscan which is not parsed by > > > > /usr/share/pyshared/gbp/deb/uscan.py if I'm reading ot correctly. > > > My previous patch works happily with the version in wheezy (and you are > > > right > > > that I should have worked on the newest available version in the first > > > place.) > > > > Oh, just to clarify: My test was without your patch, just with the > > current gbp installed, as an answer to Guido's "shouldn't this work > > already?" > > Okay just the patched version results in a much easier workflow and it solves > the problem for me so I will try to gently push it forward ;-)
That's fine. I just wonder if it wouldn't be even better to enhance uscan to put out the name of the repacked tarball in a different xml element and slurp this in git-buildpackage then? This would be much more robust. Would you feel comfortable in enhancing uscan that way? Cheers, -- Guido > > Regards, > cstamas > -- > CSILLAG Tamas (cstamas) - http://cstamas.hu/ > -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-bugs-dist-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
