Guillem Jover dixit: >On Tue, 2017-02-07 at 16:08:44 +0100, Sven Joachim wrote: >> On 2017-02-07 14:41 +0100, Guillem Jover wrote:
>> > If what you want is to just create a source package then the correct >> > thing to do IMO is to just run dpkg-source --build. >> >> But this source package cannot be uploaded then, because there is no >> accompanying .changes file. > >Sure, and I question the wisdom of doing a pure source-only upload w/o >building the binaries at the same time. I think a preferable way is to Erm, nobody says we want to do that. To be more precisely, my workflow is thus: ① run dpkg-buildpackage -S (possibly with -d, possibly -nc) ② pass the created .dsc to cowbuilder (with hooks for lintian, etc.) ③ check the result ④ upload either the .changes from step 1 (source-only) or 2 above >proposed debian/.build/. But then building source w/o making sure the >tree is clean is the problem here. Nobody says we don’t make sure the tree is clean. It’s just that “the tree is clean” can also be determined by the revision control system (usually, sufficiently, with caveats, and yes, I know them). >> I am disabling running 'debian/rules clean' (usually because the >> packages have Build-Depends my workstation cannot fulfil), not >> disabling dpkg cleaning up its own files _after_ the fact. >> >> Well, that was my intent anyway. > >Right, see my comment above. I don’t see any comment of yours that shows me how to avoid running d/r clean but getting a source package without having the tools clutter my directory (yet). (Of course that may be because I caught a cold and can’t read English well, but…) >Hope my explanation above clarifies my confusing wording. I do think >you are using the wrong tool for the job. If you are building from a >clean tree and only want a source package, then just use dpkg-source, >using dpkg-buildpackage is for builds/uploads. Times ago, I learnt using dpkg-source is only for -x and anything else is for internal use by other tools only. Maybe that’s why I’m a bit reluctant. But it *is* for “builds/uploads” in my eyes, plus it must do things like generating the quilt patch for single-debian-patch, etc. Also, I know (and pass, from various scripts) the options for dpkg-buildpackage to, well, dpkg-buildpackage. I don’t see why I should distinguish between -S and non-‘-S’ suddenly when it always worked. >If you are preparing a source-only upload, I'd expect maintainers to >build the binaries too. Yes, see above. I do build the binaries, but only in a clean chroot, not on my host system, but *in order to do that* I need a .dsc to throw into cowbuilder. (And then, my argumentation is, why not upload that then, especially as the _source.changes is also generated.) >> In general, this works except for .pc/ and now debian/files. > >I don't think it's safe to expect dpkg-buildpackage to not generate >stuff when it runs, TBH. For calling it with -S, it used to be. >At least up to now B+debian/rules cleanB; has been the responsible to >remove for debian/files, changing that would a bit of an interface >change. Hm. (I think the real problem here is that ‘debian/rules clean’ has two jobs, and the advent of “dh $@ --with a-lot,even-more,too-much” saw this problem rising.) >See above. :) This is all not very… helpful. I guess I’ll at least change the wrapper script that calls dpkg-buildpackage (after doing things like renaming the current directory so format 1.0 diffs have the correct pathnames in them, and possibly adding snapshot changelogs) to remove these files after the call ☹ bye, //mirabilos -- 22:20⎜<asarch> The crazy that persists in his craziness becomes a master 22:21⎜<asarch> And the distance between the craziness and geniality is only measured by the success 18:35⎜<asarch> "Psychotics are consistently inconsistent. The essence of sanity is to be inconsistently inconsistent
