pcp
[Top] [All Lists]

RE: [pcp] pcp updates

To: "'Nathan Scott'" <nathans@xxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: RE: [pcp] pcp updates
From: "Ken McDonell" <kenj@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Fri, 13 May 2016 14:22:27 +1000
Cc: <pcp@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Delivered-to: pcp@xxxxxxxxxxx
In-reply-to: <379571486.47005266.1463031637596.JavaMail.zimbra@xxxxxxxxxx>
References: <5733E7EC.5010107@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <379571486.47005266.1463031637596.JavaMail.zimbra@xxxxxxxxxx>
Thread-index: AQHMO63ZNMZ49JpDSKv3Sxumq06uqAHk1goan7GK6ZA=
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Nathan Scott [mailto:nathans@xxxxxxxxxx]
> Sent: Thursday, 12 May 2016 3:41 PM
> To: Ken McDonell <kenj@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> Cc: pcp@xxxxxxxxxxx
> Subject: Re: [pcp] pcp updates
> ...
> > Ken McDonell (11):
> >       [...]
> >       debian/control: deleted
> 
> This bit is problematic - we must have a debian/control thats part of
> the source tarball, as it defines the packaged built by the *official)
> Debian build machines.  And since we generate the source tarball from
> git now we have to have it committed in the tree.
> 
> I've reverted that for now - is the problem there having a modified
> file in the source tree?  (it's OK for control.master to overwrite it
> locally for our own builds - annoying to end up with a modified file,
> but I don't think there's any other way we can go here...?)

This is really ugly.

If control has to be in the tarball, how is that file related to 
control.master?  Specifically, I guess it needs the conditional stull _all_ 
included, but that suggests any change committed to control.master must also be 
made and committed to control.

Alternatively, consider the attached patch ...
- keep debian/control out of git
- make debian/control from debian/control.master in Makepkgs
- add debian/control to tarball manifest

Attachment: debcontrol.patch
Description: Binary data

<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>