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

Re: Ok to use upstream doumentation as-is (i.e. not regenerate)?

On Tue, Jun 07, 2011 at 12:54:23PM +0200, Vincent Danjean wrote:
> On 05/06/2011 07:39, Vincent Bernat wrote:
> > On Sat, 4 Jun 2011 21:54:11 +0200, Jonas Smedegaard wrote:
> > 
> >> What I do is use upstream provided tarballs, then put aside
> >> autotools-generated files, then autogenerate myself, and in the clean
> >> rule put back the upstream-provided files (because I want not only
> >> minimal required build routines idempotent but also building with
> >> git-buildpackage).
> > 
> > In the clean rules, you can just delete those autogenerated files.
> If you do not want git-buildpackage to complain (of
> "not committed changes"), you need to restore them.
> I often use this in my rules:
> clean:
> 	[...]
>         # if this is a git repository, restore removed files that would have
>         # been ignored by dpkg-source
>         -test -d .git && git checkout -- $$(git status | \
>                 sed -e '/^#[[:space:]]*deleted:[[:space:]]*/s/^#[[:space:]]*deleted:[[:space:]]*//p;d' | \
>                 grep -v '^debian/')

I thought "git reset --hard; git clean -f" is enough to get pristine
state under git for manual operation.  I am curious why this is done
with this fancy script?  Maybe this is something to do with
git-buildpackage which I should know.

(I was thinking , as long as git reflect pristine source situation, this
shorter type-able sequence restores source tree for me.  If inside
debian tree should not be recorded in git, we can add .gitignore with
debian in it.)


Reply to: