Cédric Boutillier escreveu isso aí: > Hi! > > On Sun, Sep 11, 2011 at 11:44:10PM +0200, Cédric Boutillier wrote: > > On Sun, Sep 11, 2011 at 10:38:55AM -0700, Antonio Terceiro wrote: > > > If you do not ship the files under bin/, there is no reason to patch them at all. > > > You are right, I committed the patch before deciding not to ship the > > files in bin/. I will revert 6cb66aaa. > > reverted in the repo. > > > > If you have .pc in .gitignore, it is more difficult to known why a > > > second build is failing. Overriding upstream's .gitignore does not seem > > > like a good idea, anyway. > > > Putting .pc in .gitignore is something I got from [0]. How does one live > > otherwise with this uncommitted directory? (there is just one repo in > > pkg-ruby-extras) with a commited .pc). I thought that having an upstream > > .gitignore was in fact a bug in upstream release, is it not? > > > [0] http://raphaelhertzog.com/2010/11/18/4-tips-to-maintain-a-3-0-quilt-debian-source-package-in-a-vcs/ > > I now understand that this item in the reference above has been outdated > since #591858 was closed, so there is no need to put .pc in .gitignore. > Anyway, modifying upstream .gitignore is somehow modifying the source > from outside debian/, which is bad (even if the presence of upstream > .gitignore is not optimal, but inevitable with tarballs from github). > > Should I use --filter option of git import-orig to filter out upstream > .gitignore in the future? I feel there is no single correct answer for this, but I prefer to not touch anything upstream unless strictly necessary, including .gitignore files. > Anyway, I am reverting my change to restore upstream .gitignore. Good. I've just uploaded the package. -- Antonio Terceiro <terceiro@debian.org>
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature