Hello, On Wed 09 Aug 2023 at 10:29am +01, Matthew Vernon wrote:
> And you pointed out that, in fact, I'd be better just using
> dpkg-buildpackage -uc -b
>
> In particular, that avoids the need to produce a source package at
> all, which in many cases is desirable (in a gitish workflow, they're
> not useful). dgit-user(7) does include runes to produce a
> source-package-for-sbuild (under "Using sbuild") alongside a note that
> this source package should not otherwise be used (and a reference to
> #868527).
What I like to tell people is that dgit is pretty much only for when
what you want to do will involve .dscs. No .dscs, no need for dgit.
> In fact, while a DD always wants to use some flavour of dgit
> build/sbuild/whatever (since a DD will be uploading a source or binary
> package), for non-DD-users who don't care about source packages but
> just want binaries-from-git, they don't want dgit build at all (since
> that will make a source package), but rather dpkg-buildpackage[0].
I think that the above distinction in terms of whether source packages
are required is more informative than this distinction. How about
something like:
As a general rule, you only need to invoke dgit when what you want
to do involves generating or unpacking .dsc files. And if you're
not actually performing an upload to a Debian-style archive, the
only case you need a .dsc is likely to be 'dgit clone'.
(I don't think the fact that sbuild's input is a source package is a
problem here, but possibly that should be worked in too.)
--
Sean Whitton
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
