On Tue, Dec 02, 2025 at 08:55:57AM +0100, Agustin Martin wrote: > On Mon, Dec 01, 2025 at 01:32:45AM +0100, Agustin Martin wrote: > > On Tue, Nov 25, 2025 at 11:37:10PM +0100, Guillem Jover wrote: > > > While converting some packages to use the new watch format 5, I noticed > > > what seems to be a regression, or where the documentation is not clear > > > or misleading. > ... > > > Running «uscan» does not execute uupdate. Explicitly telling uscan > > > to use uupdate at the end restores the previous behavior: > > Seems that I have not used uupdate for so many years that I was confused > about its purpose when filing and dealing with > https://bugs.debian.org/111915. uscan program is right, there should be > no default for update script (e.g., I usually upgrade the Debian tree > manually invoking gbp import-orig). > > I wonder if wording in attached patch is more clear on all this.
Hi, While text in that patch can surely be improved I think is far better than the current buggy text I introduced in my first proposal. I would like to commit this change unless people more familiar with uscan prefer to handle this themselves or tell me not to do so. Regards, -- Agustin
