control: tag -1 -moreinfo Hello,
On Mon, Apr 23 2018, Ian Jackson wrote:
>> origtargz is "a tarball has been settled on for this upload, get it
>> for me please."
>
> I have just read the manpage for origtargz.
>
> I don't think origtargz is good for my usecase because it's too
> automatic. In particular, if I know I want to use a local
> pristine-tar branch I don't want a command which might download
> something from the network.
That is reasonable. Untagging this bug 'moreinfo'.
You may wish to know that gbp can also extract pristine-tar tarballs:
% gbp buildpackage --pristine-tar
but of course that involves more than what this wishlist bug is
requesting.
>> pristine-tar is one way of settling on that tarball.
>>
>> git-deborig is "my git tree is right, please give me a tarball
>> because the Debian archive works that way."
>
> git-deborig was more what I wanted.
I don't follow. What you wanted was exactly your sponsee's tarball, I
thought. In that case, git tags are not authoritative in the sense that
git-deborig takes to them to be authoritative, so git-deborig is not
appropriate.
> I wouldn't have minded having to ask `git-deborig --pristine-tar'.
So long as I am its (de facto) maintainer, I do not want git-deborig to
have that functionality, for two reasons.
Firstly, it strikes me as a layering violation. git-deborig is in the
git-* namespace because it is a wrapper for an existing git command,
namely, git-archive. Just as git-debrebase wraps git-rebase, plus a few
other git commands. And the nine ~/bin/git-* scripts I have ..
Secondly, tarballs generated/outputted by git-deborig should always be
ephemeral, not needing to be stored anywhere and regenerated when
needed, which is the opposite of pristine-tar. ISTM that git-deborig
would be harder to understand if that particular assumption was
violated.
So it seems that as you originally suggested, the functionality you are
requesting should be in pristine-tar.
Thanks!
--
Sean Whitton
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
