On Tue, 16 Feb 2010, James Westby wrote: > > Right now, dpkg-dev building tools are mostly VCS-agnostic (I would like > > this to change, by providing a generic vcs-buildpackage) and the only > > solution to add those fields is to pass -D parameters to the dpkg-source > > call. > > Which isn't currently accessible from dpkg-buildpackage, advice on > dealing with that would be appreciated.
That's http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=566230 we just need to decide on the proper syntax and we can implement it. But I got no feedback :( > (vcs-buildpackage would be interesting, I'd contribute to that if you > start it) Cool, don't hold your breath though, I have plenty to do before I can tackle this one... > > I'm not sure that VCS-*-tree is needed though, why not simply adding some > > sort of "dirty" marker in the VCS-*-revision field? What would the > > supplementary hash be useful for? > > That's pretty much what it is doing at a first cut, but without having > to define a format for Vcs-*-revision beyond "string that means > something to the VCS." > > It would allow tools to do more intelligent things sometimes though. A > tool may want to act differently if two packages with different revision > ids have matching trees. That seems pretty hypothetic at that stage though, can you think of concrete use cases? Cheers, -- Raphaël Hertzog Like what I do? Sponsor me: http://ouaza.com/wp/2010/01/05/5-years-of-freexian/ My Debian goals: http://ouaza.com/wp/2010/01/09/debian-related-goals-for-2010/ -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [email protected] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [email protected] Archive: http://lists.debian.org/20100218091451.gc30...@rivendell
