Hi,
On Mon, 17 Jul 2017 13:18:54 +0100 Ian Jackson
<ijack...@chiark.greenend.org.uk> wrote:
> Raphael Hertzog writes ("Re: [buildd-tools-devel] Bug#868527: Bug#868527:
> want sbuild --no-source or something"):
> > On Sun, 16 Jul 2017, Johannes Schauer wrote:
> > > Indeed, the task to solve is how to transfer the source into the chroot.
> > >
> > > But is $(dpkg-source -Zgzip -z0 --format=1.0 -sn) really the right thing
> > > to do?
> >
> > No, it's clearly a hack and one that might have side effects due to
> > differences (for example in set of ignored files) between format 1.0
> > and format 3.0 (quilt).
>
> Indeed. I think it's the best recommendation, though, with the
> current tooling. Unless you can think of a better option, I think I
> should recommend this hack to stretch users.
>
> You are right that it has differences in the ignored files.
> Specifically, this rune transfers the complete contents of the working
> tree, including the .git directory, into the build environment. I doubt that
> is likely to cause trouble in practice.It has been more than two years since the last message in this bugreport. As dgit becomes more and more mature, maybe we should revisit what sbuild could do to improve on the current situation? For example I would not be opposed to a --dgit switch which would then do the right thing as it knows about the state of a source tree that dgit is able to work with and how it can (and should) be transported into an sbuild chroot. Personally, I never needed the dpkg-source workaround for any of my packages with dgit but if anybody wants to propose a patch then I'd like to review and include it into sbuild. Thanks! cheers, josch
signature.asc
Description: signature
