Otto Kekäläinen writes ("Bug#1106071: wanted: tag2upload support for
pristine-tar"):
> What are your thoughts on repackaging?
Thanks for bringing this up. However, as you can see from the start
of this report, we wouldn't generally recommend using pristine-tar
anyway. We're intending to support it because it's a thing some of
our users will expect.
When the upstream source code is repacked, prstine-tar makes even less
sense. In those situations, we are making our own tarball anyway.
Our dgit-maint-*(7) workflow manpages give information on maintaining
filtered git branches. I don't think uscan is a particularly good way
of doing this filtering. It thinks about things in a very tarball
way.
But I don't think any of this is particularly relevant for this bug.
git-debpush and tag2upload should use pristine-tar data if it is
available.
If you would like to discuss this further, please file a new bug.
I think it's important to keep *this* bug for details of the behaviour
of git-debpush and tag2uplaod's pristine-tar impleentation. [1]
Ian.
[1] For the avoidance of any doubt:
If you disagree, and still think that this has implications for
pristine-tar support in tag2upload, please *still file a new bug*.
So, speaking as a maintainer of the src:dgit package, please do not
post further messages on this topic to *this* bug. I don't want to
see it derailed with a discussion about uscan and/or tarball
repackaging.
--
Ian Jackson <[email protected]> These opinions are my own.
Pronouns: they/he. If I emailed you from @fyvzl.net or @evade.org.uk,
that is a private address which bypasses my fierce spamfilter.
