Sean Whitton writes ("Bug#1105862: git-debpush and detecting intent to use
pristine-tar"):
> Strictly, it's an implementation detail of the combination of the
> service and the archive whether it even tries to fetch existing tarballs
> from the archive versus just generating new ones each time. But
> calling out that local tarballs you may have certainly aren't relevant
> in the manpage for git-debpush(1) is fine.
Yes. Also that git-debpush doesn't attempt to transfer pristine-tar
information via git, which is a thing the user might expect it to do.
> > Also, it would be nice to detect this situation somehow.
...
> Someone might want to maintain upstream tarballs in their local
> pristine-tar branch even if they know they won't reach the archive
> because they are using tag2upload. Then they'd have to --force every -1
> upload. Not a huge deal but a disadvantage (currently you have to
> --force every experimental->unstable upload, which is similar).
I think people who use pristine-tar are (overwhelmingly) doing in
accordance with the doctrine that Debian should base its work on, and
redistribute, upstream tarballs. That's what pristine-tar is *for*.
So I think complaining in this situation will almost always be
correct.
The only concern I have is: what happens if you stop using (wanting to
use) pristine-tar. Does gbp tooling maintain the branch if it exists?
I mean: would you have to do something to stop it doing that, or pass
--force every time?
> Otherwise, I think a check like this is a good idea, and I'll work on
> it.
Thanks,
Ian.
--
Ian Jackson <ijack...@chiark.greenend.org.uk> These opinions are my own.
Pronouns: they/he. If I emailed you from @fyvzl.net or @evade.org.uk,
that is a private address which bypasses my fierce spamfilter.
