Hello, On Mon 28 Jul 2025 at 09:21pm +02, Andrea Pappacoda wrote:
> It's likely that I didn't explain myself correctly. I meant the existing > upstream= and upstream-tag= metadata fields which git-debpush already > uses. The pristine-tar tool does not need those to generate a tarball, > but I believe it's still useful to include them alongside the > pristine-tar= metadata field to compare the pristine-tar tree to the > tree of the git commit contained in the upstream= metadata field. Thanks. We don't want to depend on the pristine-tar field for anything other than obtaining the orig.tar, so we would definitely want to keep the upstream= and upstream-tag= fields no matter what. >> Trying to read your patch, I think the fact I don't use pristine-tar is >> really showing. Is the .id file defined somewhere? Is your knowledge >> of the pristine-tar branch contents from reading a spec, or empirical? > > Kind of both. The pristine-tar(1) manpage says, under the `pristine-tar > commit _tarball_ _upstream_` section: > >> The upstream parameter specifies the tag or branch [or commit, Ed.] >> that contains the same content that is present in the tarball. The >> name of the tree it points to will be recorded for later use by >> pristine-tar checkout. > > So yes, pristine-tar specifies that it stores the tree id somewhere. It > does not explicitly say where (well, not in the manpages), but it does > store that tree id inside a file named as the input tarball with ".id" > appended (as shown in its source code). This is not configurable, and > pristine-tar also looks for such file when running `pristine-tar > checkout`, so it cannot change really, otherwise new pristine-tar > versions would be unable to extract old tarballs, which defeats the > purpose of the tool. > > The ".delta" file is explicitly mentioned in the manpage, just below the > paragraph I quoted before. Thanks, I understand now. -- Sean Whitton
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
