Re: [Reproducible-builds] Bug#138409: Bug#138409: Bug#138409: dpkg-dev: please add support for .buildinfo files
Hi, Quoting Guillem Jover (2016-02-04 09:44:13) > On Sun, 2016-01-31 at 14:43:08 +0100, Jérémy Bobbio wrote: > > and “Installed-Build-Depends” for the list of packages? > > I asked for more suggestions on #debian-dpkg, and Johannes Schauer > suggested Transitive-Build-Depends, which is something I had in mind > too (that or «Recursive-»), but kind of softly discarded in trying to > have a consistently namespaced «Build-» field name. :) Some of the > reasons Johannes put forward are that this name is better because it > clearly describes what's the exact purpose of the field, and gives > no room for misinterpretation. And if we had to change the algorithm > we could just use a new name. All of which I concur with. maybe we can merge Lunar's original suggestion Installed-Build-Depends (a name which is missing the transitive/recursive-ness) with the new suggestion and make it: Installed-Transitive-Build-Depends This way it would not be confused with the *actual* transitive build depends which would also include non-installed ones or even non-installable ones because parts of the transitive build depends set might conflict with each other. One could also argue that the recorded build dependencies being the installed as well as transitive ones is quite implicit and thus neither needs to be mentioned as part of the field. just my 2 cents cheers, josch signature.asc Description: signature ___ Reproducible-builds mailing list Reproducible-builds@lists.alioth.debian.org http://lists.alioth.debian.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/reproducible-builds
Re: [Reproducible-builds] Bug#138409: Bug#138409: Bug#138409: dpkg-dev: please add support for .buildinfo files
Hi! On Sun, 2016-01-31 at 14:43:08 +0100, Jérémy Bobbio wrote: > Guillem Jover: > > > How about naming the field “Environment-Variables”? > > > > Hmm, or Environment, or Build-Environment, which reminds me that I've > > found the usage of Build-Environment (as the list of transitively > > required packages) slightly confusing, precisely because the first > > thing that comes to mind with environment is the variable space. > > > > Perhaps we should consider renaming that one? Say Build-Packages (but > > that might be confusing), Build-Depends-Used, or something else? We > > also already have a Built-Using field too (although for source > > packages not binary ones, with a name I've also found slightly > > confusing as being too generic). > > Ok. What about “Environment” for the variables, I'm not sure if it'd be better to be explicit about this being a build thing, and not just a random environment. Are you worried about confusion with the previous usage of the field with the same name? > and “Installed-Build-Depends” for the list of packages? I asked for more suggestions on #debian-dpkg, and Johannes Schauer suggested Transitive-Build-Depends, which is something I had in mind too (that or «Recursive-»), but kind of softly discarded in trying to have a consistently namespaced «Build-» field name. :) Some of the reasons Johannes put forward are that this name is better because it clearly describes what's the exact purpose of the field, and gives no room for misinterpretation. And if we had to change the algorithm we could just use a new name. All of which I concur with. (BTW I also realized that I don't think we are including «Essential:yes» packages in that set, and we should.) Thanks, Guillem ___ Reproducible-builds mailing list Reproducible-builds@lists.alioth.debian.org http://lists.alioth.debian.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/reproducible-builds
Re: [Reproducible-builds] Bug#138409: Bug#138409: Bug#138409: dpkg-dev: please add support for .buildinfo files
Hi, On Sonntag, 31. Januar 2016, Jérémy Bobbio wrote: > A breakdown of the change since the last submitted patch is available > for easier review: > https://anonscm.debian.org/cgit/reproducible/dpkg.git/log/?h=pu/buildinfo should we upload a package based on this branch to our repo? cheers, Holger signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part. ___ Reproducible-builds mailing list Reproducible-builds@lists.alioth.debian.org http://lists.alioth.debian.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/reproducible-builds
Re: [Reproducible-builds] Bug#138409: Bug#138409: Bug#138409: dpkg-dev: please add support for .buildinfo files
Holger Levsen: > On Sonntag, 31. Januar 2016, Jérémy Bobbio wrote: > > A breakdown of the change since the last submitted patch is available > > for easier review: > > https://anonscm.debian.org/cgit/reproducible/dpkg.git/log/?h=pu/buildinfo > > should we upload a package based on this branch to our repo? Not yet. I'm waiting for feedback on the buildinfo identifier, the chosen environment variables, and the names of the fields. -- Lunar.''`. lu...@debian.org: :Ⓐ : # apt-get install anarchism `. `'` `- signature.asc Description: Digital signature ___ Reproducible-builds mailing list Reproducible-builds@lists.alioth.debian.org http://lists.alioth.debian.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/reproducible-builds
