On Thu, Feb 14, 2013 at 10:24:54AM -0600, Ben Myers wrote: > Hey Nathan, > > On Wed, Feb 13, 2013 at 09:14:37PM -0500, Nathan Scott wrote: > > ----- Original Message ----- > > > On Wed, Feb 06, 2013 at 12:15:47PM +1100, Dave Chinner wrote: > > > > ... > > > > It breaks the 'make deb' command for all the trees. > > > > > > xfsprogs: update 'make deb' to use tarball > > > > > > This patch changes the build process so that 'make deb' uses the same > > > process of creating a source tree as the release script. > > > > > > * Add a list of files which go in the release tarball in .git_census > > > This is needed so that you can create a tarball in a bare release > > > tree, when .git is not available. > > > > > > > I think you'll need .git_census in .gitignore (ala configure). > > Possibly remove the underscore for naming consistency - *shrug*. > > Will do. Thanks. > > > > > > > > > * 'make deb' now creates unsigned packages by default, 'make debsign' > > > creates signed packages. > > > > > > > Ehrm - why? Everything else in your patch worked, but this part broke > > (which suggests a larger problem, in that this build path is no longer > > checked on every build) ... > > > > debsign: Can't find or can't read changes file ! > > > > > +debsign: deb > > > + debsign > > > + > > > > (That's not valid usage, FWIW). > > > > I would recommend just removing that change in behaviour, "make deb" > > was fine as it was (for me anyway, and evidently for Dave too). Best > > to go secure-by-default and not change this. > > 'make deb' failed for me like this: > > signfile xfsprogs_3.1.9.dsc > gpg: skipped "Nathan Scott <nathans@xxxxxxxxxx>": secret key not available > gpg: [stdin]: clearsign failed: secret key not available > > dpkg-genchanges >../xfsprogs_3.1.9_amd64.changes > dpkg-genchanges: including full source code in upload > dpkg-buildpackage: full upload; Debian-native package (full source is included) > dpkg-buildpackage: warning: Failed to sign .dsc and .changes file > make: *** [deb] Error 1 Don't know what you are doing differently to me, but make deb is not even trying to build signed packages on my build machine. It never has, and I don't ever recall seeing make deb fail because it was trying to build signed packages in the last 5 years on any of my machines... I'm not passing -uc -us to dpkg-buildpackage, so somewhere aling the line it is working out that it shouldn't be signing the packages itself... > I think it is also reasonable for devs to be able to build test debs on > machines that have empty keyrings. That's exactly what I have been doing for a long time. Cheers, Dave. -- Dave Chinner david@xxxxxxxxxxxxx _______________________________________________ xfs mailing list xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx http://oss.sgi.com/mailman/listinfo/xfs
