On May 13, 2025 16:37, Johannes Schauer Marin Rodrigues <jo...@debian.org> wrote:
> > 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. All the packages in the OpenStack team aren't using pristine-tar (but upstream tags). That's just an example. I do NOT want to change this btw... and that is also the reason why it is not in the Python team (which mandate using such a broken-by-design tool). Thomas
