Mattia Rizzolo writes ("Bug#844125: dgit: Built-in support for pbuilder [and 1
more messages]"):
> [lots of explanation]
Thanks, that is very helpful information.
> Anyway, isn't this discussion kind of moot? I understood that for
> reasons you're thinking of specifying `--debbuiltopts -b`, so you'd get
> a binary only build and that one would discard the .orig as well (as
> with -b the source don't appear on the .changes at all).
Yes, well, technically it is moot for supporting pbuilder as a dgit
build option. But I think gbp users will probably want
--build--products-dir more often than eg sbuild users, so proper
pbuilder support means fixing #863582 (that --b-p-d does not always
work properly) and #857316 (that it is not configurable).
Also, dgit's divergence from pbuilder on the name
(--build-products-dir vs. --buildresult) is probably a bad thing.
> Obviously that doesn't include people with SOURCE_ONLY_CHANGES=yes,
> as those when doing a -b build would get a _amd64.changes with only
> .debs and a _source.changes with only source.
I'm not sure why anyone would use SOURCE_ONLY_CHANGES=yes so I don't
know why and how dgit should allow them to achieve the same result.
My initial reaction is that if the user wants this, then dgit should
still make the source package itself.
It might be necessary for dgit to override some of the user's pbuilder
config. (And, as I said in my other mail, it might also be desirable
for dgit to interrogate the pbuilder config so that it can honour it.)
Ian.
--
Ian Jackson <ijack...@chiark.greenend.org.uk> These opinions are my own.
If I emailed you from an address @fyvzl.net or @evade.org.uk, that is
a private address which bypasses my fierce spamfilter.
