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

Re: Enabling uupdate to simply remove files from upstream source

On Fri, 17 Aug 2012 14:12:49 +0200, Andreas Tille wrote:

> > > So we finally have three independently developed solutions (we also have
> > > several instances of a debian/get-orig-source script in Debian Med
> > > team) and 
> > pkg-perl variant:
> > http://anonscm.debian.org/gitweb/?p=pkg-perl/scripts.git;a=tree
> > repack.sh and repack.stub there
> Solution 4. ;-)


BTW, there's even documentation on how to use it (and what else is
> Right that's correct (and explains Daniel's hint there is no need for
> uupdate).
>  1. I propose a file debian/uscan.remove which contains regular expressions.
>     The deletion process will loop over every line and does
>      rm -rf ${MAIN_SOURCE_DIR}/<expression>

I also like Jonas' idea of using d/copyright.
>  2. uscan just knows the option --repack.  Do we want to reuse this and start
>     deleting files in case the file debian/uscan.remove exists or do we
>     want to use an explicite option --repack-and-remove?  I have some
>     preference for just using --repack.

Hm, not sure if changing the semantics of an existing option is a
good idea.

What I like about our current way is that I -- once d/watch is
adjusted -- I don't have to do anything besides calling uscan.
>  4. In case something was removed the version string will be appended by
>     '~dfsg' to express the fact that the content of the original source
>     was changed.


What I also like about our current scripts is
- that the suffix is configurable if needed
- that it manipulates also MANIFEST (ok, that's perl-specific)

 .''`.  Homepage: http://info.comodo.priv.at/ - OpenPGP key 0xBB3A68018649AA06
 : :' : Debian GNU/Linux user, admin, and developer  -  http://www.debian.org/
 `. `'  Member of VIBE!AT & SPI, fellow of the Free Software Foundation Europe
   `-   NP: The Dubliners: Champion at keeping them rolling

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Reply to: