On Thu, Jun 25, 2009 at 01:04:59AM -0700, Steve Langasek wrote: > On Thu, Jun 25, 2009 at 01:06:54AM +0100, Roger Leigh wrote: > > If one is using a tool such as git-buildpackage, the "debian" and > > "upstream" branches are the *minimum* required information however. > > That sounds to me like a defect in git-buildpackage, then.
it's not a defect in the tool, it's a limitation of a certain style of
working (using a seperate branch to generate orig.tar.gz's) that just so
happens to be pretty popular with gbp users.
i believe that gbp can also happily use a pre-existing tarball instead
of using an upstream branch to generate it, and also in the case of the
native packaging you don't need it at all. it can also use "pristine-tar"
to generate a bit-for-bit identical orig.tar.gz from within the repo.
so lots of ways that would be very complicated to represent in a "general"
way as source package headers. i'm sure the same goes for other tools.
fwiw, you can ship all the required metainfo for gbp as a config file
debian/gbp.conf inside the diff.gz of a source package. i think a more
pragmatic approach would be for other tools to do something similar.
sean
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
