Re: git branches vs debian specific git tools (Re: RFC for changes regarding NMU in developers reference (Was: ITN procedure?)
On May 13, 2025 16:37, Johannes Schauer Marin Rodrigues <josch@debian.org> wrote:
>
> Quoting Andrey Rakhmatullin (2025-05-12 12:29:40)
> > On Mon, May 12, 2025 at 11:58:45AM +0200, Santiago Vila wrote:
> > >El 12/5/25 a las 9:49, Holger Levsen escribió:
> > >>I dont want to use git-buildpackage and I don't want a gpb.conf. Please accept
> > >>this. Thanks.
> > >
> > >I also don't like the idea of adding a gpb.conf to each and every package.
> >
> > Yes, in most cases when it's needed it's because your branch names and/or
> > pristine-tar usage flag don't match the gbp defaults.
>
> if that were the only need, then that would mean that gbp users cannot
> overwrite defaults in their ~/.gbp.conf. For example, pristine-tar is currently
> disabled by default. Suppose a user has this in their ~/.gbp.conf because they
> are tired of having to pass --pristine-tar to all the gbp commands manually:
>
> [DEFAULT]
> pristine-tar = True
>
> Then without a debian/gbp.conf, this user would get into trouble if they try to
> modify one of the few[*] packages on salsa that do not make use of
> pristine-tar.
>
> [*] I have no clue about the actual numbers and maybe there are teams which
> explicitly disable pristine-tar but I cannot remember the last time I changed a
> package on salsa without a pristine-tar branch and without a debian/gbp.conf.
All the packages in the OpenStack team aren't using pristine-tar (but upstream tags). That's just an example. I do NOT want to change this btw... and that is also the reason why it is not in the Python team (which mandate using such a broken-by-design tool).
Thomas
Reply to: