On Mon, Oct 30, 2023 at 09:30:57AM +0900, Marc Dequènes wrote: > Quack, > > Sorry for the lag, I really lacked time and energy recently but I'll try to > upload a fix soon. > > On 2023-10-07 04:09, Jeremy Bícha wrote: > > No, greetd needs to build itself correctly regardless of whether there > > are helper functions available. > > You're right and I did not realize nocheck would be used for real in this > package. I never saw this as a perfect solution but until debcargo > implements what's needed that seemed fine. > > > https://salsa.debian.org/debian/greetd/-/merge_requests/4 > > It looks fine but that's precisely what I wanted to avoid: I do not want to > maintain the build steps and have to update the calls and flags when cargo > or any other piece of tooling changes. > Maybe that won't change often but that's still silly to implement that in > each and every leaf package and as a consequence there's no unified policy. > Unfortunately I do not have the bandwidth to propose debcargo changes.
I think we can actually implement a build-step, and no-op that in debcargo/dh-cargo for pure library crates (for those, "building" is just testing, the build result is thrown away and only the sources are contained in the "built" binary package). this should get us what you want (building application with nocheck, just skipping tests) without causing any fallout, although it of course requires careful testing. FWIW, dh_auto_install (which runs `cargo install`) would also take care of building the binary, if it hasn't been built already. so for a regular application packaged in debcargo-conf, a nocheck build already works and skips the tests while still building the application binary. > So I guess I'll apply the patch you kindly provided but I'm thinking about > handing over the maintainership of wlgreet and greetd to people who really > have time to do it properly, or… maybe comaint. > > Anyway, thanks for the report and patch everyone. > \_o<