Sean Whitton writes ("Bug#871909: dgit gbp-build fails if user specifies
--git-builder"):
> On Sat, Aug 12 2017, Sam Hartman wrote:
> > Recommendation: if the user passes --git-builder as a gbp-build
> > option, perhaps dgit shouldn't pass builder-specific options.
>
> That sounds reasonable -- dgit should probably strip the signature after
> the build, in order to leave consistent output, probably printing a
> warning.
Parsing the arguments to other programs is quite a lot of work and
makes for a fragile program. Normally, where I can, I have taken a
different approach: provide a specific option to dgit that 1. causes
the corresponding argument to be passed to a subprogram and 2. makes
whatever other changes are ncecessary. gbp is more consistent than
many programs so pre-parsing its arguments is perhaps tolerable, but:
> > Alternatively, you can say that I shouldn't pass git-builder, but if
> > you're going to say that, I'd appreciate some mechanism to accomplish
> > my pristine-tar goal. I guess I can also run gbp buildpackage without
> > dgit, and that'll mostly work for me, but it seems not entirely
> > desirable.
>
> I would use origtargz(1) to check out the pristine tarball.
I think the right direction might be for there to be a way to tell
dgit that you are wanting to use this workflow, but perhaps indeed
running origtargz and the dgit sbuild will DTRT.
> Though I guess you have to rm the orig that dgit downloads.
I don't see why that would be needed. If dgit clone or dgit fetch
gets an orig, then surely it will be the same as the pristine-tar one.
It might be nice to provide a way to avoid having dgit unnecessarily
download origs that can be generated by origtargz.
Ian.
--
Ian Jackson <ijack...@chiark.greenend.org.uk> These opinions are my own.
If I emailed you from an address @fyvzl.net or @evade.org.uk, that is
a private address which bypasses my fierce spamfilter.
