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

Re: uscan for a single text file



Sergio Durigan Junior <sergiodj@sergiodj.net> writes:
>> What is wrong here? I thought that mk-orig.tar.gz should be called only
>> when it is a tar archive?
>
> Yeah, uscan is the responsible for invoking mk-origtargz.  That can be a
> problem indeed for cases like yours.

Hmm, the manpage of uscan says:

| Please note the repacking of the upstream tarballs by mk-origtargz
| happens only if one of the following conditions is satisfied:
|  · USCAN_REPACK is set in the devscript configuration.
|  · --repack is set on the commandline.
|  · repack is set in the watch line as opts="repack,...".
|  · The upstream archive is of zip type including jar, xpi, ...
|  · Files-Excluded or Files-Excluded-component stanzas are set in
|    debian/copyright to make mk-origtargz invoked from uscan remove 
|    files from the upstream tarball and repack it.

Non of these is true in my case. So, isn't this a bug in uscan?

> Here's a hacky solution.  First, in order to avoid calling mk-origtargz
> you need to pass the --no-symlink option to uscan (or set the
> USCAN_SYMLINK environment variable to "no").  That is unfortunately the
> only way, and there is also no opts available that you can use inside
> the watch file.

wouldn't it be worth to add an option to uscan "opts=norepack"?

> Also, I found a few problems with your repackaging script.  uupdate will
> expect a certain pattern when decompressing it, like a directory named
> package-version/, so you need to create that as well.  Attached on this
> message is an updated script that seems to work (as far as I have
> tested; I don't have the full package here).

Yea, mine was a quick hack. In principle, I don't see a reason for this
at all. Usually, the package is just downloaded and then processed
further by other tools (gbp import-orig) or untarred manually.

I still don't get the reason for the other stuff that uupdate does. But
thanks for the script; I'll use it ;-)

Best regards

Ole


Reply to: