Your message dated Wed, 30 Nov 2016 06:04:54 +0100
with message-id <[email protected]>
and subject line Re: Bug#845556: dpkg: should not generate .buildinfo files for
source only uploads
has caused the Debian Bug report #845556,
regarding dpkg: should not generate .buildinfo files for source only uploads
to be marked as done.
This means that you claim that the problem has been dealt with.
If this is not the case it is now your responsibility to reopen the
Bug report if necessary, and/or fix the problem forthwith.
(NB: If you are a system administrator and have no idea what this
message is talking about, this may indicate a serious mail system
misconfiguration somewhere. Please contact [email protected]
immediately.)
--
845556: http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=845556
Debian Bug Tracking System
Contact [email protected] with problems
--- Begin Message ---
Package: dpkg
Version: 1.18.15
Severity: normal
Hi Guillem,
the subject basically says it all, dpkg should not generate .buildinfo
files for source only uploads, as they are totally pointless for those.
(I'm also not even sure whether you had implemented in most recent
uploads, but I thought I better file this is a bug which you can easily
close, instead of risking to loose this patch, which floated around on
irc:
>From e774e1e19a0aa3ed21603949385bf1f0ac1452e9 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
From: James Clarke <[email protected]>
Date: Fri, 11 Nov 2016 00:55:43 +0000
Subject: [PATCH] dpkg-buildpackage: Don't generate .buildinfo for source-only
builds
---
scripts/dpkg-buildpackage.pl | 12 +++++++-----
1 file changed, 7 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-)
diff --git a/scripts/dpkg-buildpackage.pl b/scripts/dpkg-buildpackage.pl
index b1d644d..32e1028 100755
--- a/scripts/dpkg-buildpackage.pl
+++ b/scripts/dpkg-buildpackage.pl
@@ -561,13 +561,15 @@ if (build_has_any(BUILD_BINARY)) {
withecho(@rootcommand, @debian_rules, $binarytarget);
}
-run_hook('buildinfo', 1);
+run_hook('buildinfo', build_has_any(BUILD_BINARY));
-push @buildinfo_opts, "--build=$build_types" if build_has_none(BUILD_DEFAULT);
-push @buildinfo_opts, "--buildinfo-id=$buildinfo_id" if $buildinfo_id;
-push @buildinfo_opts, "--admindir=$admindir" if $admindir;
+if (build_has_any(BUILD_BINARY)) {
+ push @buildinfo_opts, "--build=$build_types" if
build_has_none(BUILD_DEFAULT);
+ push @buildinfo_opts, "--buildinfo-id=$buildinfo_id" if $buildinfo_id;
+ push @buildinfo_opts, "--admindir=$admindir" if $admindir;
-withecho('dpkg-genbuildinfo', @buildinfo_opts);
+ withecho('dpkg-genbuildinfo', @buildinfo_opts);
+}
run_hook('changes', 1);
--
2.10.2
Thanks for maintaining dpkg!
--
cheers,
Holger
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
tag -1 wontfix
thanks
Hi!
On Fri, 2016-11-25 at 18:25:10 +0100, Guillem Jover wrote:
> On Thu, 2016-11-24 at 16:56:05 +0100, Holger Levsen wrote:
> > Package: dpkg
> > Version: 1.18.15
> > Severity: normal
>
> > the subject basically says it all, dpkg should not generate .buildinfo
> > files for source only uploads, as they are totally pointless for those.
>
> Why? I think this has come multiple times now, and I guess this needs to
> be documented in dpkg itself or a new FAQ entry be added for this. :)
>
> The rationale is that, this is still a build, and Build-Depends need
> to be present, clean gets invoked which might peform non-trivial
> amounts of work, update stuff, etc before the source package gets
> built. These might indeed be pointless for the reproducible project,
> but remember that this request was way older than the reproducible
> project and dpkg usually serves more general needs. ;)
>
> If people just want to build a source package, because they are
> building with say -nc -S (which implies -d too), then I think in
> general they might be better served with «dpkg-source -b» instead.
>
> > (I'm also not even sure whether you had implemented in most recent
> > uploads, but I thought I better file this is a bug which you can easily
> > close, instead of risking to loose this patch, which floated around on
> > irc:
>
> Thanks, but this was implemented on purpose, and I'm inclined to just
> wontfix and close it. Or are there any strong reasons why people think
> this is not a good idea?
Ok, I'm doing this now, please feel free to reopen if there are
compelling arguments to do so.
Thanks,
Guillem
--- End Message ---
