> In summary, I think a much better argument to touch defaults would argue with > best packaging practices, not with debian/gbp.conf.
True, but it is also somewhat of a chicken-and-egg problem. The fact X is currently not default is an excuse for people who are in a hurry or lazy to say that they can continue to ignore it, as the author of the tool didn't consider it important, so why should they care. Perhaps a middle ground would be to publish in man pages a recommendation to use specific defaults and a warning/hint that they may become defaults in the future? And to reply what I think is the overall most optimal workflow: at least for packages that have a git upstream and also an upstream that signs tarballs I recommend using what I have in and also in https://salsa.debian.org/mariadb-team/galera-4/-/tree/debian/latest/debian/{gbp.conf,README.source.md} and what I also suggested you use in box64 in https://salsa.debian.org/debian/box64/-/merge_requests/1 (along with the work I did to prove that git-buildpackage automatically honors the copyright excludes as it builds upon uscan). _______________________________________________ git-buildpackage mailing list [email protected] http://lists.sigxcpu.org/mailman/listinfo/git-buildpackage
