Re: Linitian orig-tarball-missing-upstream-signature
Hi Paul, Christian,
Christian Seiler <christian@iwakd.de> writes:
> On 07/31/2017 10:54 AM, Paul Wise wrote:
>> On Mon, Jul 31, 2017 at 4:24 AM, Ole Streicher wrote:
>>> is not really helpful to me; at least I did not find a mention in the
>>> Debian policy that the signature should be included in the .changes
>>> file. Also, it seems that the standard (pdebuild) toolchain does not
>>> include it by default.
>>
>> Policy documents current practice rather than describing what
>> practices should be taken, so I think that we will only get this in
>> policy once it is more common.
Hmm, but the right place to discuss what practices should be taken is
debian-devel, right? Especially if it has impact on the packaging
workflow. That's why I was wondering why it was not discussed there.
>> The standard toolchain here is uscan, not pdebuild, and there is a bug
>> asking placing the signatures in the correct place open already, it
>> just needs someone to do the work:
Shouldn't this be fixed before a new error is introduced?
> How does this interact with git-based workflows? Currently I use
> pristine-tar (in combination with gbp) for all of the packages I
> maintain. [1]
Oops, this is my case as well. At least my usual workflow:
gbp import-orig --uscan
gbp pq rebase
gbp dch -R --commit
gbp buildpackage --git-tag
seems to be broken here -- at least the signature is not in the
pristine-tar branch (and I don't know how it shall get there, and how it
shall get back out).
Since I am not able to fix uscan (as an almost-perl-illiterate), and I
also don't know about how this will influence the git-buildpackage
workflow, I would for the moment just ignore the error.
Any other advice?
Best regards
Ole
Reply to: