Thanks for confirming! Once a new git-buildpackage is uploaded, consider blogging about it to let people know about the new integration :)
On Tue, Oct 24, 2017 at 8:42 AM, Guido Günther <a...@sigxcpu.org> wrote: > Hi, > On Mon, Oct 23, 2017 at 11:00:03PM +0200, Guido Günther wrote: >> Hi, >> On Mon, Oct 23, 2017 at 10:00:49PM +0200, Michael Stapelberg wrote: >> > control: tags -1 + pending >> > >> > On Mon, Oct 23, 2017 at 9:38 PM, Guido Günther <a...@sigxcpu.org> wrote: >> > > Hi, >> > > On Sun, Oct 22, 2017 at 12:42:29PM +0200, Michael Stapelberg wrote: >> > >> On Sun, Oct 22, 2017 at 12:28 PM, Guido Günther <a...@sigxcpu.org> >> > >> wrote: >> > >> > Hi, >> > >> > On Sun, Oct 22, 2017 at 11:15:20AM +0200, Michael Stapelberg wrote: >> > >> >> Thanks for filing this. >> > >> >> >> > >> >> On Sun, Oct 22, 2017 at 9:21 AM, Guido Günther <a...@sigxcpu.org> >> > >> >> wrote: >> > >> >> > Package: pk4 >> > >> >> > Version: 2 >> > >> >> > Severity: wishlist >> > >> >> > >> > >> >> > Hi, >> > >> >> > it would be nice if pk4 would allow to use "gbp import-dsc" to >> > >> >> > unpack >> > >> >> > the donwloaded sources in downloadDSCAndUnpack so users: >> > >> >> > >> > >> >> > - get a git archive right away >> > >> >> > - can reuise their gbp configuration such as the configured >> > >> >> > builder, >> > >> >> > - pristine-tar, ... right away >> > >> >> >> > >> >> I think we could introduce a hook which would replace the default >> > >> >> behavior of dpkg-source -x, taking as arguments the path to the DSC >> > >> >> and the destination directory. >> > >> > >> > >> > Sounds good. >> > >> > >> > >> >> >> > >> >> I wonder whether the gbp hook should live in the git-buildpackage >> > >> >> Debian package, though? That way, you could maintain it directly. If >> > >> > >> > >> > Sure. It would be nice if setup for users would the be as simple as >> > >> > >> > >> > ln -s /usr/share/doc/git-buildpackage/examples/pk4 >> > >> > ~/pk4/pk4.deb822.d/gbp >> > >> >> > >> Almost: >> > >> >> > >> mkdir -p ~/.config/pk4/hooks-enabled/unpack/ >> > >> ln -s /usr/share/pk4/hooks-available/unpack/gbp \ >> > >> ~/.config/pk4/hooks-enabled/unpack/ >> > >> >> > >> Regarding the symlink target, could we ship >> > >> /usr/share/pk4/hooks-available/unpack/gbp in git-buildpackage? That >> > >> way, all hooks would be in the same directory. This is similar to how >> > >> shell tab completion files are shipped. >> > > >> > > Shipped now with the next gbp version: >> > > >> > > https://github.com/agx/git-buildpackage/blob/master/debian/pk4 >> > >> > Neat! >> > >> > I just committed >> > https://github.com/Debian/pk4/commit/797dc0b887abbc482a7a095d687b710509a80816, >> > upload to Debian follows in a second. > > Just tried it and works like a charm. Thanks a lot! > -- Guido > >> > >> > One thing I noticed: the resulting branches are master, pk4 and >> > upstream, which the currently checked out branch being master. >> > Shouldn’t the only two branches be pk4 and upstream? >> >> Yes, that's: >> >> >> https://github.com/agx/git-buildpackage/commit/01da1e61b003aa7cb576fbe5755a665a12c3f2ba >> >> which I should have fixed long ago. >> Cheers, >> -- Guido >> >> > >> > > >> > >> >> you think that’s not a good idea, could you suggest how the hook >> > >> >> should be implemented? I’m envisioning something like this >> > >> >> (untested): >> > >> >> >> > >> >> #!/bin/sh >> > >> >> set -e >> > >> >> mkdir -p "$2" >> > >> >> cd "$2" >> > >> >> git init >> > >> >> gbp import-dsc "$1" >> > >> > >> > >> > #!/bin/sh >> > >> > set -e >> > >> > gbp import-dsc "$1" "$2" >> > >> > >> > >> > is enough (gbp will do the rest). That way we could also support >> > >> > incremental imports (that is if the directory is already there we >> > >> > simply >> > >> > import the new version on top of it so the use can diff between the >> > >> > old >> > >> > an new version. >> > >> >> > >> Note that the pk4 output directories contain the version number, so I >> > >> think incremental imports wouldn’t work well. >> > >> >> > >> > >> > >> >> Side note: I think we should be fairly clear about the difference >> > >> >> between a gbp-from-dsc repo and a gbp-from-gbp-clone repo, to not >> > >> >> confuse our users. >> > >> > >> > >> > Yeah. I was thinking of putting a .git/gbp.conf into the repo that >> > >> > sets >> > >> > >> > >> > [DEFAULT] >> > >> > upstream-branch = upstream >> > >> > debian-branch = pk4 >> > >> > >> > >> > This would >> > >> > >> > >> > - make sure we override settings any branch settings in >> > >> > debian/gbp.conf >> > >> > which we don't care about (since we're not cloning from Vcs-Git: >> > >> > - Having the default branch named pk4 would make it obvious that this >> > >> > is s.th. special. >> > >> > >> > >> > What do you think? In this case it would rather be more like your >> > >> > script >> > >> > above: >> > >> >> > >> Sounds good to me. >> > >> >> > >> > >> > >> > #!/bin/sh >> > >> > set -e >> > >> > >> > >> > if [ ! -d $2 ]; then >> > >> >> > >> nit: use "$2" here as well >> > >> >> > >> > >> > >> > git init "$2" >> > >> > >> > >> > cat <<EOF > "$2"/.git/gbp.conf >> > >> >> > >> I suggest to add as a comment what you wrote above for the benefit of >> > >> readers of the hook :). >> > >> >> > >> > [DEFAULT] >> > >> > upstream-branch = upstream >> > >> > debian-branch = pk4 >> > >> > EOF >> > >> > fi >> > >> > >> > >> > cd "$2" >> > >> > gbp import-dsc "$1" >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > Does this sound reasonable? I would then also provide a script that >> > >> > can >> > >> > be used with pk4-replace. >> > >> >> > >> I don’t quite follow. What sort of script is required for that? >> > > >> > > Probably not even a script but a post-build hook that cats the name of >> > > the generated changes file to /proc/self/fd/3. >> > >> > Ah, I see. >> > >> > > Cheers, >> > > -- Guido >> > >> > >> > >> > -- >> > Best regards, >> > Michael >> > -- Best regards, Michael
