On Tue, Nov 26, 2024 at 08:30:31PM -0800, Otto Kekäläinen wrote: > > > > One possible rebuttal to this is "gbp needs to do the right thing then". > > > > Currently gbp by default generates a broken tarball, which is also a > > > > source of confusion for many. > > > > > > Do you have a bug report number? > > > > No. > > I've found #902249 which is titled "Pull tarballs from the archive (or > > upstream location)", maybe that's the one you think about. I haven't read > > it, except for the "I hoped we could stay out of that business in 2018 but > > since tarballs are still _the_ _thing_ in Debian" line, which I liked. > > > > For the avoidance of doubt, I don't think gbp *can* do the right thing > > there. It's not my rebuttal. Maybe gbp should just refuse to generate a > > random tarball from a commit-ish and let^Wrequire people to provide one or > > provide a way to generate one in a correct way. > > I often hear this complaint about pristine-tar, but I don't take it > seriously until somebody actually files a bug report and has a > reproducible case. For every single package I maintain I use > pristine-tar and it works correctly.
Maybe you (and maybe some other people too?) misunderstood what I meant. I meant that if the repo doesn't enable pristine-tar via d/gbp.conf and you didn't enable it globally on your system then by default building that repo will generate and use a tarball that is not identical to the one in the archive. -- WBR, wRAR
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
