Path: csiph.com!news.redatomik.org!aioe.org!bofh.it!news.nic.it!robomod From: Jeremy Stanley Newsgroups: linux.debian.maint.python Subject: Re: a few quick questions on gbp pq workflow Date: Sun, 06 Aug 2017 21:20:02 +0200 Message-ID: References: X-Mailbox-Line: From debian-python-request@lists.debian.org Sun Aug 6 19:15:55 2017 Old-Return-Path: X-Amavis-Spam-Status: No, score=-12.001 tagged_above=-10000 required=5.3 tests=[BAYES_00=-2, LDO_WHITELIST=-5, PGPSIGNATURE=-5, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no X-Policyd-Weight: using cached result; rate: -6.1 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha512; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="lXWiJ4HdwMsvT8zo" Content-Disposition: inline User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.23 (2014-03-12) X-Sa-Exim-Connect-IP: 2001:4802:7801:102:be76:4eff:fe20:63e0 X-Sa-Exim-Rcpt-To: debian-python@lists.debian.org X-Sa-Exim-Mail-From: fungi@yuggoth.org X-Sa-Exim-Scanned: No (on azathoth.yuggoth.org); SAEximRunCond expanded to false X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/15093 List-ID: List-URL: List-Archive: https://lists.debian.org/msgid-search/20170806191537.GY2409@yuggoth.org Approved: robomod@news.nic.it Lines: 55 Organization: linux.* mail to news gateway Sender: robomod@news.nic.it X-Original-Date: Sun, 6 Aug 2017 19:15:37 +0000 X-Original-Message-ID: <20170806191537.GY2409@yuggoth.org> X-Original-References: <20170806153751.GW2409@yuggoth.org> <39436F23-8AC3-4D53-908C-C87DCA12B8A9@kitterman.com> <20170806185344.GX2409@yuggoth.org> <75e5c522-f859-b105-c547-b053dbd20697@gmail.com> Xref: csiph.com linux.debian.maint.python:9712 --lXWiJ4HdwMsvT8zo Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On 2017-08-06 20:00:59 +0100 (+0100), Ghislain Vaillant wrote: [...] > You'd still have to clean the pre-built files, since they would be > overwritten by the build system and therefore dpkg-buildpackage > would complain if you run the build twice. >=20 > So, you might as well just exclude them from the source straight > away, no? Repacking an upstream tarball just to avoid needing to tell dh_install not to copy files from a particular path into the binary package seems the wrong way around to me, but maybe I'm missing something which makes that particularly complicated? This comes up on debian-mentors all the time, and the general advice is to avoid repacking tarballs unless there's a policy violation or you can get substantial (like in the >50% range) reduction in size on especially huge upstream tarballs. Otherwise the ability to compare the upstream tarball from the source package to upstream release announcements/checksums/signatures is a pretty large benefit you're robbing from downstream recipients who might wish to take advantage it. --=20 Jeremy Stanley --lXWiJ4HdwMsvT8zo Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc" Content-Description: Digital signature -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1 iQJ8BAEBCgBmBQJZh2rYXxSAAAAAAC4AKGlzc3Vlci1mcHJAbm90YXRpb25zLm9w ZW5wZ3AuZmlmdGhob3JzZW1hbi5uZXQ5N0FFNDk2RkMwMkRFQzlGQzM1M0IyRTc0 OEY5OTYxMTQzNDk1ODI5AAoJEEj5lhFDSVgpQvMQAJj24P2/7ZMgQJIGasCReNVt D2HqIGm2Ihfrx3q13GlsTARi7C2NbWtxcQLKP0mAEZgMIUgjyeJAdh1vxng+WOow jiCpzop/8XUQbkQYxjyMBkboWSrtoIbWaUEhesnt5lGgvVHarSxAYDcLdjFqj7ez aEJCYvGt80UOy0CKuAZK8ME6oLMt/y/F18RLoH9iVylbeZ7JaoUYMM+YzU9qHY2+ ct+ggAJD9V0I/HNB/7riRZKWogmQxuQwajIQ42yqdonmZC/F34l0f9xnlWwBGAe1 Oxjc5RAEEbZwaYnqeZLJZapjNN8sU2O49BIq10NF7Ov8H2gGpU1e4A79ORA9k5JV nWJia4bpSFtW+2avm/7NPvOeI70wbRLVmQJ76+aAVdS+8DsdYxB3J4yrOZmXWjHO Zxsn820Sc48V9jep6cUqRrbwyhXoJopi9/q6wkqNKNmlswBfdX3CBqBJQXD2he4v 2v51Hjvrekafg1bsWDKvqJ50kslx3qkuGYv0ozE3Rox5H2EdxPQh6FXmogiNDpDB gOca3bEUXrluZMhAWEdWAOG1NsfMhcByGWrgmONzemA0cZ2L+w6D/ROvgCNrhg4s ddP18On3M0PFAWdbb7ANjc/sD8/ClAsgXwtJO6WHnDwx7Ru0VSwpYrBhj7zWZeso vPSdlhEV/ZPzY1QlufB1 =/Lpr -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --lXWiJ4HdwMsvT8zo--