FWIW, I don't think any of the dput-ng hackers particularly mind if it
changes, changing API could just happen for both together, at the same
time. Or maybe just consolidate :)
Paul
On Dec 28, 2016 4:34 PM, "Ian Jackson" <ijack...@chiark.greenend.org.uk>
wrote:
> Ben Finney writes ("dput: Call for feedback: What should change? What
> should stay the same?"):
> > So I'm now familiar enough, but still fresh enough, that feedback from
> > people with different experiences is particularly valuable.
>
> Thanks a lot for seeking input. I'm not a very advanced user of dput,
> personally, but:
>
> As you will know, dgit calls dput. dgit doesn't really care whether
> dput is dput-ng, but I need them to be "compatible enough". Also,
> dgit very much wants dput not to fail, because that would be an
> inconvenient late failure. Checks (such as running lintian) should
> come earlier, which means that dgit needs to do them somehow. #827879
> and #840249 refer.
>
> Any improvement there would leave a similar issue with dput-ng,
> probably.
>
> (Frankly, I think it is wrong to do something like a lintian or suite
> check _after_ the signature has been made. Checks should be done
> before signature. So any such checks in dput ought to be redundant.)
>
> Christian Seiler writes ("Re: dput: Call for feedback: What should change?
> What should stay the same?"):
> > I only use dput-ng, but because of the extra checks that has already
> > saved me from performing a wrong upload; the check in question is that
> > the Distribution: field in the *.changes file matches the distribution
> > in debian/changelog.
>
> I can't resist saying that dgit checks that :-).
>
> 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.
>
>
