[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: quilt 3.0 source format and dpkg-source/dpkg-buildpackage

On Mon, Dec 28, 2009 at 01:14:46AM +0100, Norbert Preining wrote:
> Can someone of the proposers of this (nice? stupid? rubbish?) format
> explain me please why on earth:
> - git-buildpackage
> - dpkg-buildpackage
> - and in fact at the bottom dpkg-source
> fuck around in my git repository, applying patches, just for builing
> a source package?

Sorry to hear about your bad experience. I use the same workflow,
git-buildpackage + 3.0 (quilt) and I have no problems so far.

> If someone is so kind and tell me how that should work:
> $ git-buildpackage -us -uc -S
> ... ok new quilt 3.o source package has been built
> $ git status
> ...peng, all patches applied, but I don't WANT them applied!!!

Are you using --git-export-dir? It seems not, and that you build the
package in-place.

I use this snippet in my gbp.conf:
export-dir = ../build-area/

which never runs anything in my git dir, so it's always pristine.

> $ quilt pop -a
> ... blabla cannot find bla bla...
> $ git status
> ...still a pain

Maybe git reset --hard + removal of the .pc directory.

> Ok, it might be that some people enjoy working permanently in that format,
> but then, how to create a new patch? quilt new does not work:
> $ quilt new
> ... bummer, there is now ./patches in my git repository

My .quiltrc includes this:

So it uses the right directory.

> I don't know what big advantages there really are, I have seen the
> announcements again and again and haven't seen any compelling reason in 
> it. The only reason is that it is just plain counter intuitive
> to work with.
> Well, anyway, I converted one pakcage to quilt 3.0, and I will convert
> it back. I don't care for it.

Again, sorry to hear this experience - in my case, after reading the
wiki page, it was a painless experience. And the new format seems
cleaner - no longer quilt-specific stuff in debian/rules, and a nice
debian.tar.gz instead of a diff.


Reply to: