Hi, Quoting Sam Hartman (2016-10-13 19:36:21) > >>>>> "Johannes" == Johannes Schauer <jo...@debian.org> writes: > > Johannes> Do you know a situation when it would be beneficial to let > Johannes> sbuild create the source package *again* after it has > Johannes> already been produced for sbuild? > > Sbuild can take a directory as input.
yes, and the first thing it does, is to run "dpkg-source -b ." to create a source package which is *then* passed to the actual sbuild machinery. So this is just a convenience feature which allows one to run sbuild from within a unpacked source package without manually executing dpkg-source. But the actual input to sbuild is still the source package. The question remains: in which situation would it be beneficial to let sbuild produce the source package *again*? > I tend to use it in that way for CI-driven builds from git repositories. > Sometimes I want source uploads, Use "dpkg-buildpackage -S" and add a "-nc" if you just extracted the source package (so no clean up is required). > sometimes I want a binary upload. Then just run sbuild but then you don't need --source. > (In this case I ended up wanting a source upload because of another bug in > mini-buildd, although in other cases I'd just want a source upload). As an > example, I might want to run gbp buildpackage --git-export-dir=somewhere > --git-builder=sbuild --source --no-arch-any --no-arch-all to prepare an > upload to debian (after testing my tree some other way). Does sbuild add > that much in that situation? No, but it sure doesn't hurt, and consistency > is nice. I still don't understand why you want to throw in the --source argument above. You will see that even if you do not provide the --source argument, there will be a .dsc in the parent directory, the one created by "dpkg-source -b ." as it is run by sbuild if you execute it from within an unpacked source package. Why do you want it to rebuild the source package *again*? Thanks! cheers, josch
signature.asc
Description: signature
