Quoting Andrey Rakhmatullin (2025-05-12 12:29:40) > On Mon, May 12, 2025 at 11:58:45AM +0200, Santiago Vila wrote: > >El 12/5/25 a las 9:49, Holger Levsen escribió: > >>I dont want to use git-buildpackage and I don't want a gpb.conf. Please > >>accept > >>this. Thanks. > > > >I also don't like the idea of adding a gpb.conf to each and every package. > > Yes, in most cases when it's needed it's because your branch names and/or > pristine-tar usage flag don't match the gbp defaults.
if that were the only need, then that would mean that gbp users cannot
overwrite defaults in their ~/.gbp.conf. For example, pristine-tar is currently
disabled by default. Suppose a user has this in their ~/.gbp.conf because they
are tired of having to pass --pristine-tar to all the gbp commands manually:
[DEFAULT]
pristine-tar = True
Then without a debian/gbp.conf, this user would get into trouble if they try to
modify one of the few[*] packages on salsa that do not make use of
pristine-tar.
[*] I have no clue about the actual numbers and maybe there are teams which
explicitly disable pristine-tar but I cannot remember the last time I changed a
package on salsa without a pristine-tar branch and without a debian/gbp.conf.
> >Most of my packages don't have such file and Salsa CI is able to build them.
>
> Because they use the gbp defaults?
And because they pass those options that are not the default manually, see line
142 in salsa-ci.yml:
gbp pull --ignore-branch --pristine-tar --track-missing
One of the reasons why gbp is unable to change defaults is because that would
break packaging for those packages which do not explicitly declare their gbp
branch defaults in debian/gbp.conf, see #829444
I don't disagree that having to have a debian/gbp.conf is ugly but having it
allows:
* contribution by developers with custom settings in ~/.gbp.conf
* less painful changes of the gbp defaults
As far as I see it, adding debian/gbp.conf to my packages is a way for me to
declare things like branch layout, pristine-tar usage, upstream git tag format
or signing options in a machine readable format. In another sub-thread it was
pointed out that this information can also be put into debian/README.source
but that file is not machine readable...
Thanks!
cheers, josch
signature.asc
Description: signature
