[buildd-tools-devel] Bug#868527: Bug#868527: want sbuild --no-source or something

[Johannes Schauer]

Quoting Ian Jackson (2017-07-16 14:32:17)
> It would be nice if it were easier to use sbuild with a gitish
> downstream workflow which does not produce "3.0 (quilt)" source
> packages.
> 
> [snip]
> 
> The above attempt will probably fail.
> 
> This is because the package "foo" is probably "3.0 (quilt)", according
> to debian/source/format.  sbuild will try to build a source package,
> and dpkg-source will want the user's changes to be "committed" as
> patches in debian/patches.  The user won't have done that and probably
> doesn't want to.  Worse, in the general case, changes might be made to
> the git tree which dpkg-source cannot represent.
> 
> The solution is to not build a source package.  The user who adopts a
> gitish workflow probably doesn't want one.  However, sbuild needs a
> source package because that's how it transfers the package into the
> chroot.

Indeed, the task to solve is how to transfer the source into the chroot.

But is $(dpkg-source -Zgzip -z0 --format=1.0 -sn) really the right thing to do?
Would it not be more fitting to use some git-based command to exchange the
data? For example using a git bundle? This would then make sure that everything
git knows about is transferred into the chroot. Sbuild can make sure that git
gets installed together with build-essential and is thus able to git unbundle
the file.

What do you think?

Thanks!

cheers, josch
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 833 bytes
Desc: signature
URL: <http://lists.alioth.debian.org/pipermail/buildd-tools-devel/attachments/20170716/b43e54c3/attachment.sig>