On Mon, May 11, 2009 at 08:34:54PM +0200, Petr Pudlak wrote:
> 
> On Mon, May 11, 2009 at 03:11:22PM +0200, Filippo Rusconi wrote:
> > 
> > It is a pity to have a Debian Policy so well documented, to point
> > package-making learners to that Policy and then have non-conformant
> > builders.
> > 
> > In fact, I'd ask what would be the solution to overcome the problem
> > (apart from the desirable fixing the builders)?
> 
> Hi, I'm glad I (finally) got some response to the problem!
> 
> I've had precisely the same problem as Filippo: I prepared my first package, I
> spent many hours studying the Policy to follow it precisely, and to my
> disappointment, I got a FTBFS bug report immediately after uploading the
> package.

I suspected I was not alone in this situation :)

> I don't think the problem is so much in the Policy, I think the problem is 
> with
> the builders. The builders must provide dependencies according to
> debian/control and the target(s) they're calling. Of course, improving the
> Policy is OK, but once the guidelines are agreed upon and written there, the
> builders must follow it.

I agree with this, also because what is stated in Policy is just plain
sensible.

> Not the other way around.  I'm quite surprised that
> these problems with the builders haven't been solved already, considering the
> number of packages in Debian!

Well, maybe there are not so many packages that perform as a clear cut
separation between build-indep and build-arch...
 
> I suggest to create a dummy package that would be as simple as possible and
> that would demonstrate the problem. Then test it with various building tools 
> and
> fill eventual bug reports. Maybe I could prepare such dummy package in the
> following days, if I have time.

If this would convince the developers responsible for the builders to
deal with the problem, then that would be awsome. Any such DD
listening ?

Best regards,
                 Filippo

--
Filippo Rusconi, PhD - CNRS - public key C78F687C
Author of ``massXpert''     at http://www.massxpert.org

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Reply via email to