Sean Whitton writes ("Re: Bug#930922: dgit: combination of -wgf and
--include-dirty nukes untracked files"):
> On Mon 24 Jun 2019 at 12:02pm +0100, Ian Jackson wrote:
> >> A possible alternative would be to actually add --include-all-dirty, but
> >> the problem in #914317 suggests that might not be a great idea.
> >
> > Your --include-all-dirty is roughly equivalent to -wn or -wdd ?
>
> If -wn and -wdd imply not building in a playtree (I can't recall what we
> decided there), I think that's right, yes.
No, they don't. I meant "--include-all-dirty = --include-dirty -wn"
or som such, and --include-dirty means not playtree.
> > Therefore, any files which are not to be included in the result, must
> > be deleted. (Doing otherwise would involve programmatic construction
> > of dpkg -I -i options. Yikes.)
> >
> > Conversely, files which *are* to be included in the result could in
> > principle be deleted *after* package building, but cannot be deleted
> > before. I really don't think I want to extend the post-build stuff in
> > dgit (currently just patch deapplication) any further. The tangle of
> > execution flow is quite bad enough.
>
> Er, yes, I don't see why deleting anything after package building would
> be desirable. (Not sure what you have in mind here aside from
> completeness in your reasoning.)
Just that.
> > We already have 11 subtly different variations of --clean, to specify
> > exactly which files should be tolerated and which cleaned. These 11
> > variations are therefore precisely the possibilities for
> > --include-dirty's unclean file handling.
>
> Assuming those 11 variations are exhaustive of the possibilities, yes.
I think they are :-).
> > Can we express this situation somehow in the manpage definition for
> > --include-dirty ? Something like:
> >
> > Note that dgit will still clean the working tree before building the
> > source packsage. Depending on the --clean mode, files not tracked
> > by git, and/or files deleted by debian/rules clean, are at risk of
> > being deleted, rather than included in the built source package.
> > Consider passing a --clean= (-w...) option along with
> > --include-dirty.
> >
> > maybe.
>
> I think this is unnecessarily demanding of the reader as compared with
> my proposed patch.
>
> I'd suggest just updating my patch to say "you can use --clean=none or
> --clean=dpkg-source[-d] in addition to --include-dirty".
OK, can you fold that in for me ? Thanks.
> > Should --include-dirty --quilt={linear,smash} be treated as
> > --quilt=nofix ?
>
> Is what you have in mind, here, helping the user avoid hitting the
> #914317 problem?
Yes.
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.
