On Sun, 2025-02-16 at 14:41 -0800, Otto Kekäläinen wrote: > Hi! > > If people on this list would like to see dh_make and debmake add > gbp.conf examples in new packages, feel free to +1 or comment these: > > https://salsa.debian.org/debian/dh-make/-/merge_requests/22 > https://salsa.debian.org/debian/debmake/-/merge_requests/19 > > The template I now suggest is longer to provide more support to new > packagers. Another approach would be to make it minimal suggesting > packagers only configure the things that are package and upstream > specific and really needs to be there to avoid contributors having to > guess which options to use with gbp commands.
Many upstreams do not sign their release tarballs and do not publish the signatures. Perhaps the 'upstream-signatures' option should not be forced on? -- Regards, Andrii 6741 02CA 7FF7 8AE0 9567 4FE2 A0CE 7A07 38B0 83C9
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
_______________________________________________ git-buildpackage mailing list [email protected] http://lists.sigxcpu.org/mailman/listinfo/git-buildpackage
