On Tue, Nov 25, 2025 at 11:37:10PM +0100, Guillem Jover wrote:
> Package: devscripts
> Version: 2.25.27
> Severity: normal
> 
> Hi!
> 
> While converting some packages to use the new watch format 5, I noticed
> what seems to be a regression, or where the documentation is not clear
> or misleading.
> 
> With the following watch file for the pci.ids source package:
> 
>   ,---
>   Version: 5
> 
>   Source: https://github.com/pciutils/pciids
>   Mode: git
>   Matching-Pattern: HEAD
>   Git-Date: %Y.%m.%d
>   Git-Pretty: 0.0~%cd
>   Pgp-Mode: none
>   `---
> 
> Running «uscan» does not execute uupdate. Explicitly telling uscan
> to use uupdate at the end restores the previous behavior:
> 
>  ,---
>  Version: 5
> 
>   Source: https://github.com/pciutils/pciids
>   Mode: git
>   Matching-Pattern: HEAD
>   Git-Date: %Y.%m.%d
>   Git-Pretty: 0.0~%cd
>   Pgp-Mode: none
>   Update-Script: uupdate
>   `---
> 
> According to the debian-watch(5) man page, it states:
> 
>   ,---
>      •   Update-Script: <custom-script>:
> 
>        This optional line in debian/watch means to execute custom-script
>        with appropriate arguments provided by uscan.  Default script is
>        uupdate and custom scripts, if created, should behave as if uupdate.
>        See "Custom script" in uscan for more details on custom scripts and
>        "HISTORY AND UPGRADING" in uscan for how uscan invokes the custom
>        script (or uupdate).
>   `---
> 
> Which seems to be clear on «uupdate» being the default.

I proposed that wording after the one in old uscan man page and taking into
account that in uscan description one reads

DESCRIPTION
 ...
 Some previous paragraphs.
 ...
 * uscan invokes uupdate to create the Debianized source tree: 
../<spkg>-<oversion>/*

Previous wording in pre-watch5 uscan man page did not explititly stated that
uupdate was the default.

Did I miss something?

By the way, "ADVANCED FEATURES::Custom script" section in uscan man page
seems still too watch-4. It may just point to relevant sections in
debian-watch man pages.

Regards,

-- 
Agustin

Reply via email to