Control: tags -1 - wontfix Control: severity -1 serious On 31 Jan 2017, at 12:41, Thorsten Glaser <t...@mirbsd.de> wrote: > > James Clarke dixit: > >> Your mail server rejected my message (again). My guess is you didn't get the >> message from the mailing list because it saw it was already addressed to you. > > Ah, okay. (My mailserver does not reject properly sent messages > after passing greylisting, except for servers on a blacklist, > which the ones you use aren’t on.)
I don't have problems sending to anyone else. I use Google's SMTP server for sending my messages, but SPF should be correctly set up. >>> I disagree that --build is a command; it is an option that expects >>> an argument (the .dsc file). >>> >>> Please revert this! >> >> What's your reasoning? This was never officially supported. Ever. Just give >> the > > If for no other reason, then for, that cowbuilder is invoked by > other tools, and such a breaking change ought to not be uploaded > less than two weeks before the hard freeze. > >> command first, like everyone has always had to do for pbuilder. And yes >> --build >> *is* a command; it says so in the manpage[0]. Whether or not *you* think it >> is > > The manpage of 0.83 says so: > > --build .dsc-file > >> is irrelevant. All it takes is for you to change the order of the arguments >> you >> give to your c script. > > This is not very helpful. Do I reorder --build first, or the > entirety of --build .dsc-file – after all, --build was always > documented as requiring an argument (and has option format!), > yet your changelog entry says something about parsing it now > separately, which WILL break existing users. Ok, so, on re-reading 0.83's manpage, it's actually wrong; --build never took an argument directly. However, by virtue of getop_long, you could put the dsc anywhere in the arguments; the following all worked: > cowbuilder --build foo.dsc --option > cowbuilder --build --option foo.dsc > cowbuilder --option1 --build foo.dsc --option2 > cowbuilder --option1 --build --option2 foo.dsc However, given that I did not notice the "--build .dsc-file" bit when I first re-read it, I have changed my mind and will allow the old style to work. This *will* give a deprecation warning though, and I intend to remove it during the Buster release cycle; is that ok for you? I don't want to support this forever as I can give better error messages without this backwards-compatibility. It will also remain undocumented in the manpage. Regards, James
