On Thu, Dec 13, 2012 at 10:45:05AM +0100, Guido Günther wrote: > On Thu, Dec 13, 2012 at 09:31:41AM +0100, Csillag Tamas wrote: > > On Thu, Dec 13, 2012 at 09:26:02AM +0100, gregor herrmann wrote: > > > On Thu, 13 Dec 2012 09:03:07 +0100, Csillag Tamas wrote: > > > > On Wed, Dec 12, 2012 at 05:30:27PM +0100, gregor herrmann wrote: > > > > > On Wed, 12 Dec 2012 16:17:15 +0100, Guido Günther wrote: > > > > ... > > > > > The problem is still that the name of the new tarball is only > > > > > reported as a message by uscan which is not parsed by > > > > > /usr/share/pyshared/gbp/deb/uscan.py if I'm reading ot correctly. > > > > My previous patch works happily with the version in wheezy (and you are > > > > right > > > > that I should have worked on the newest available version in the first > > > > place.) > > > > > > Oh, just to clarify: My test was without your patch, just with the > > > current gbp installed, as an answer to Guido's "shouldn't this work > > > already?" > > > > Okay just the patched version results in a much easier workflow and it > > solves > > the problem for me so I will try to gently push it forward ;-) > > That's fine. I just wonder if it wouldn't be even better to enhance > uscan to put out the name of the repacked tarball in a different xml > element and slurp this in git-buildpackage then? This would be much more > robust. Would you feel comfortable in enhancing uscan that way?
I was thinking about this. I am not sure if it makes sense to expose this information there. If this kind of information can be useful elsewhere (not just for git-buildpackage) then IMHO uscan should be enhanced too. But not so sure if only git-buildpackage uses this info (or not). I looked into uscan (it is a perl script ;-) and if we want to improve it to know about repack then repack should be made a special command in the watch file. As currently repack uses a common command execution uscan cannot handle it any special as it cannot know for sure if it is a repack script or anything else. If you agree that it should be done this way (as you can read in the paragraph above) I am happy to work on uscan then the patch for git-buildpackage can be better. Regards, cstamas -- CSILLAG Tamas (cstamas) - http://cstamas.hu/ Sysadmins don't go to hell; we're already doing our time in purgatory. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [email protected] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [email protected]
