Path: csiph.com!goblin3!goblin2!goblin.stu.neva.ru!aioe.org!bofh.it!news.nic.it!robomod From: Thomas Goirand Newsgroups: linux.debian.maint.python Subject: Re: a few quick questions on gbp pq workflow Date: Mon, 04 Sep 2017 00:00:02 +0200 Message-ID: References: X-Original-To: Jeremy Stanley , debian-python@lists.debian.org X-Mailbox-Line: From debian-python-request@lists.debian.org Sun Sep 3 21:58:02 2017 Old-Return-Path: X-Amavis-Spam-Status: No, score=-7 tagged_above=-10000 required=5.3 tests=[BAYES_00=-2, LDO_WHITELIST=-5, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no X-Policyd-Weight: using cached result; rate:hard: -5 Organization: Debian User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:52.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/52.2.1 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252 Content-Language: en-US Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/15155 List-ID: List-URL: List-Archive: https://lists.debian.org/msgid-search/80597d48-90e9-3d9e-d676-8634bee68ec9@debian.org Approved: robomod@news.nic.it Lines: 40 Sender: robomod@news.nic.it X-Original-Date: Sun, 3 Sep 2017 23:57:40 +0200 X-Original-Message-ID: <80597d48-90e9-3d9e-d676-8634bee68ec9@debian.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> <20170806191537.GY2409@yuggoth.org> Xref: csiph.com linux.debian.maint.python:9772 On 08/06/2017 09:15 PM, Jeremy Stanley wrote: > 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. >> >> So, you might as well just exclude them from the source straight >> away, no? >=20 > 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 What's wrong is for upstream to pretend that one tarball / archive is its released source, when in fact it contains binary / generated files. A source tarball / archive from upstream must contain *only* source code, nothing else. If it contains anything that comes from the original source, then it's additional pain for the package maintainer. > 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. That's one view, probably motivated by the fact it's probably easier to deal with in the long run. However convenient it may be, I don't think it feels "clean". And by the way, when it comes to the OpenStack stuff, FTP masters have already expressed their dislike of the upstream ChangeLog: it is a *WAY* to big, at the level of megabytes sometimes, and it may appear in .deb files that would otherwise be a few kilobytes. All this isn't new... Cheers, Thomas Goirand (zigo)