Re: Difference in behaviour between pbuilder and sbuild
Scott Leggett writes ("Difference in behaviour between pbuilder and sbuild"):
> I've recently tried using sbuild rather than pbuilder (inspired by a
> blog post[0]), and found that the invocation of dh_installdocs differs
> between the two tools. My .docs file has this line:
...
> The consequence of this difference is that for sbuild to produce a
> package without the .gitignore I need this extra override:
I wonder if this is happening because pbuilder and sbuild are building
the _source package_ differently, and then re-extracting and building
the resulting source package ?
There is a historical anomaly about .gitignore in source packages.[1]
If that's not the reason, then this seems really wierd. debhelper(7)
mentions --ignore= but I can't see how that would get onto your
dh_installdocs command line.
> dh_installdocs --exclude=.gitignore
>
> So my question is: why is there a difference, and which is "correct"?
> And does this mean that if I use pbuilder, upload a package, and it is
> later built from source on a buildd, it can have have lint I can't
> reproduce locally?
I think it is wrong that dh_installdocs's behaviour depends on whether
you are using pbuilder.
AFAICT from the docs, there is nothing saying a .gitignore would be
excluded. So you should excluded it yourself.
[1] Several tools like to drop .gitignore from source packages,
especially if they have been created by the Debian maintainer.
However IMO you should ship the .gitignore in the source package.
Given the abysmal mess of git workflows and tools and competing repos
and what have you in Debian, there are several ways your source
package might be converted back into a git tree. Someone who does
that wants your .gitignore.
Unfortunately someone somewhere decided that .gitignore was a `VCS
file' which ought not normally to be included in `3.0 (quilt)' source
packages. In particular, often nothig generates patches for upstream
.gitignore files.
Ian.
PS: I infer that you are not using dgit. Probably, you should be.
--
Ian Jackson <ijackson@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.
Reply to: