Re: Bug#194678: devscripts: making -uc -us the default signing options
On Sun, May 25, 2003 at 12:07:19PM -0600, Bob Proulx wrote:
> Package: devscripts
> Version: 2.7.0
> Severity: wishlist
> File: /usr/bin/debuild
>
> Recently on debian-mentors a discussion[1] took place about the
> default options to 'debuild'. There at least one developer stated[2]
> that they always override the default signing with debuild -uc -us in
> their personal override files and then debsign later after testing. I
> also always override, but on the command line, and proposed[3]
> changing the default options. It was suggested[4] that I file a
> wishlist bug. Here it is.
>
> Would it be possible to change the default options to debuild so that
> the options -uc -us are the default? And change the documentation to
> suggest using debsign after debuild so that the developer is directed
> along the path of build, test, sign? This would make the simple
> command 'debuild' the simple case and the default for most developers.
> I believe it simplifies the process.
Hmm. Interesting idea. My problems with this are:
(1) It will change the default behaviour of the program, and I'm not
entirely happy with doing this. Maybe ask on -devel and see
whether there's a broad agreement on this point?
(2) It will make it's default behaviour different from that of
dpkg-buildpackage, which it is essentially emulating with a few
bells and whistles.
(3) It is easy to modify /etc/devscripts.conf or ~/.devscripts to do
this.
On the positive side, it might encourage people to test their packages
before releasing them, or it might just encourage them to add --sign
(or whatever the signing command-line option would become) to their
config file, gaining very little.
I'm not sure which way to go on this one.
Julian
--
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Julian Gilbey, website: http://www.polya.uklinux.net/
Debian GNU/Linux Developer, see: http://people.debian.org/~jdg/
Visit http://www.thehungersite.com/ to help feed the hungry
Reply to: