Idea: sbuild/pbuilder "--dgit" option

[Ian Jackson]

Mattia Rizzolo writes ("Re: Idea: sbuild/pbuilder "--dgit" option"):
> On Thu, Dec 15, 2016 at 08:25:53PM +0000, Ian Jackson wrote:
> > What would you think (particularly, sbuild and pbuilder folks) about a
> > supporting a --dgit option ?  The effect would be to pass -i\.git/
> > -I.git to dpkg-source.  (Possibly there might be other effects which
> > would be desirable, but this is the only essential one for those two
> > tools I think.)
> 
> In general, I'm open to that for pbuilder (as I also expressed
> elsewhere), as long as it's not going to be documented in the "user
> manpage" and we manage changes to that interfaces only between us (i.e.,
> I don't want anybody else to start relying on the behavior of that
> flag).

Sorry, I have obviously not been clear.  I was suggesting a documented
option to pbuilder which asks pbuilder to produce dgit-compatible
source packages.

Now, as you say, pbuilder invokes debuild.  Maybe I should be asking
for a --dgit option to debuild.  Should I CC the debuild (devscripts)
maintainers too I wonder...

> > Anyway, thanks to everyone for your opinions, whatever they may be.
> 
> Here is pbuilder's maintainer view on this dpkg-source "problem":
> pbuilder never calls `dpkg-source -b` itself.  The only `dpkg-source`
> invocation I found by grepping the source is
>     dpkg-source -x $(basename "$PACKAGENAME")
> so, not affected by that.
> For pbuilder the only thing you can do is to pass
>     --debbuildopts --source-option=-i.git/ --debbuildopts --source-option=-I.git
> or
>     --debbuildopts "--source-option=-i.git/ --source-option=-I.git"
> whichever fits you better.

Yes, if I manage to get the pbuilder integration done soon, that is
what I will do.  But I didn't need your help to figure that out :-).

What I was suggesting was that users should, as an alternative, be
able to do the build themselves rather than via dgit, and still get
the .gitignore included.

Thanks,
Ian.

-- 
Ian Jackson <ijackson at chiark.greenend.org.uk>   These opinions are my own.

If I emailed you from an address @fyvzl.net or @evade.org.uk, that is
a private address which bypasses my fierce spamfilter.