Ben Finney writes ("dput: Call for feedback: What should change? What should stay the same?"):
> So I'm now familiar enough, but still fresh enough, that feedback from
> people with different experiences is particularly valuable.
Thanks a lot for seeking input. I'm not a very advanced user of dput,
personally, but:
As you will know, dgit calls dput. dgit doesn't really care whether
dput is dput-ng, but I need them to be "compatible enough". Also,
dgit very much wants dput not to fail, because that would be an
inconvenient late failure. Checks (such as running lintian) should
come earlier, which means that dgit needs to do them somehow. #827879
and #840249 refer.
Any improvement there would leave a similar issue with dput-ng,
probably.
(Frankly, I think it is wrong to do something like a lintian or suite
check _after_ the signature has been made. Checks should be done
before signature. So any such checks in dput ought to be redundant.)
Christian Seiler writes ("Re: dput: Call for feedback: What should change? What should stay the same?"):
> I only use dput-ng, but because of the extra checks that has already
> saved me from performing a wrong upload; the check in question is that
> the Distribution: field in the *.changes file matches the distribution
> in debian/changelog.
I can't resist saying that dgit checks that :-).
Ian.
--
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.