On Tue, Dec 03, 2024 at 10:40:03AM +0800, Sean Whitton 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. > > 'origtargz' from devscripts usually does the right thing.
Yeah, but it's a separate command. Some parts of this discussion are specifically about the straightforward gbp-clone+gbp-buildpackage workflow. -- WBR, wRAR
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
