Sergio Durigan Junior <sergi...@sergiodj.net> writes: > On Saturday, July 16 2016, Ole Streicher wrote: > >> Sergio Durigan Junior <sergi...@sergiodj.net> writes: >>>> What is wrong here? I thought that mk-orig.tar.gz should be called only >>>> when it is a tar archive? >>> >>> Yeah, uscan is the responsible for invoking mk-origtargz. That can be a >>> problem indeed for cases like yours. >> >> Hmm, the manpage of uscan says: >> >> | Please note the repacking of the upstream tarballs by mk-origtargz >> | happens only if one of the following conditions is satisfied: >> | · USCAN_REPACK is set in the devscript configuration. >> | · --repack is set on the commandline. >> | · repack is set in the watch line as opts="repack,...". >> | · The upstream archive is of zip type including jar, xpi, ... >> | · Files-Excluded or Files-Excluded-component stanzas are set in >> | debian/copyright to make mk-origtargz invoked from uscan remove >> | files from the upstream tarball and repack it. >> >> Non of these is true in my case. So, isn't this a bug in uscan? > > This snippet refers to the repacking of the upstream tarball. Even when > no repacking is needed/requested, mk-origtargz is still invoked (it is > resposible for creating the symlink to the .orig.tar.gz file, for > example).
If mk-origtargz doesn't repack it, why does it look into it? The symlink could be created without as well. > yeah, as I mentioned to Gianfranco I also think it is worth adding an > option to disable the execution of mk-origtargz. I went ahead and > submitted the following: > > <https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=831521> Great. Thanks. > Yeah, it is curious that mk-origtargz and uupdate both create the same > symlink from the original tarball to the .orig tarball. What is the use of uupdate in current workflows (f.e. git-buildpackage) at all? In my opinion, it is bound to one very specific workflow, which at least I personally never used. And the rest of the watch/uscan procedure is workflow-agnostic; it is just the canonical way to get a new upstream tarball. So wouldn'it it be better to just replace uupdate by an adjusted mk-origtargz script? Then, one could replace it by an specific script if needed. BTW, in the queue of casacore-data packages we would also need a watch file + script for packages which download ~100 individual files and put them into a tarball (Upstream doesn't offer a tar download option). Any good ideas here? Best regards Ole
