Sean Whitton writes ("Re: Bug#896676: pristine-tar: more convenient automatic
mode please"):
> On Mon, Apr 23 2018, Ian Jackson wrote:
> > I don't think origtargz is good for my usecase because it's too
> > automatic. In particular, if I know I want to use a local
> > pristine-tar branch I don't want a command which might download
> > something from the network.
>
> That is reasonable. Untagging this bug 'moreinfo'.
>
> You may wish to know that gbp can also extract pristine-tar tarballs:
>
> % gbp buildpackage --pristine-tar
>
> but of course that involves more than what this wishlist bug is
> requesting.
Quite. I didn't want to build it at that point, and not with gbp.
> > git-deborig was more what I wanted.
>
> I don't follow. What you wanted was exactly your sponsee's tarball, I
> thought. In that case, git tags are not authoritative in the sense that
> git-deborig takes to them to be authoritative, so git-deborig is not
> appropriate.
Hrm.
> So long as I am its (de facto) maintainer, I do not want git-deborig to
> have that functionality, for two reasons.
>
> Firstly, it strikes me as a layering violation. git-deborig is in the
> git-* namespace because it is a wrapper for an existing git command,
> namely, git-archive. Just as git-debrebase wraps git-rebase, plus a few
> other git commands. And the nine ~/bin/git-* scripts I have ..
>
> Secondly, tarballs generated/outputted by git-deborig should always be
> ephemeral, not needing to be stored anywhere and regenerated when
> needed, which is the opposite of pristine-tar. ISTM that git-deborig
> would be harder to understand if that particular assumption was
> violated.
Hmm.
> So it seems that as you originally suggested, the functionality you are
> requesting should be in pristine-tar.
Currently I think pristine-tar does not know anything about Debian.
So I now worry that that would be a different kind of layering
violation.
I'm starting to see why we have ended up with so many different tiny
scripts...
Ian.
--
Ian Jackson <ijack...@chiark.greenend.org.uk> These opinions are my own.
If I emailed you from an address @fyvzl.net or @evade.org.uk, that is
a private address which bypasses my fierce spamfilter.
