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:
> # 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.)