On Tue, Jun 07, 2011 at 01:02:04AM -0700, Steve Langasek wrote:
> On Tue, Jun 07, 2011 at 09:39:59AM +0200, Bill Allombert wrote:
> > > One thought I had today was what will happen with packages using
> > > either cdbs or dh. Both of these provide build-arch and build-indep
> > > rules, and as a r
On Tue, Jun 07, 2011 at 09:39:59AM +0200, Bill Allombert wrote:
> > One thought I had today was what will happen with packages using
> > either cdbs or dh. Both of these provide build-arch and build-indep
> > rules, and as a result both can build using those targets today
> > (though individual pa
On Mon, Jun 06, 2011 at 11:34:43PM +0100, Roger Leigh wrote:
> On Mon, Jun 06, 2011 at 09:15:41PM +0200, Raphael Hertzog wrote:
> > Hi,
> >
> > That's true but so is it for any new feature unfortunately. And even with
> > a flag day, once you have fixed the FTBFS, you're far from having benefits
>
Roger Leigh writes:
> Would it be possible to combine both autodetection /and/ build
> features? That is, enable if in build features or if autodetected.
> This would provide convenience for developers if autodetection
> works (which will for the vast majority of packages), but would
> also perm
On Mon, Jun 06, 2011 at 09:15:41PM +0200, Raphael Hertzog wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On Mon, 06 Jun 2011, Guillem Jover wrote:
> > And to me that's one of the problems with Build-Options/Features,
> > another being the duplicated information. If we consider
> > build-arch/build-indep something useful enough
On Mon, Jun 06, 2011 at 02:33:22PM +0100, Roger Leigh wrote:
> While neither of these changes actively "enforces" the addition of
> these targets, neither do any harm, and by actively encouraging
> adoption of the targets it will reduce the total number of NMUs
> required should we go for the appro
Hi,
On Mon, 06 Jun 2011, Guillem Jover wrote:
> And to me that's one of the problems with Build-Options/Features,
> another being the duplicated information. If we consider
> build-arch/build-indep something useful enough to be widely usable
> on all packages producing arch:any + arch:all packages
On Mon, 2011-06-06 at 13:37:22 +0200, Bill Allombert wrote:
> On Mon, Jun 06, 2011 at 09:55:25AM +0200, Guillem Jover wrote:
> > > To help no existing packages today but make it easy for packages
> > > to opt in (and not break the others):
> > >
> > > 1. Introduce a Build-Options facility for pac
On Mon, 2011-06-06 at 12:29:20 +0200, Jakub Wilk wrote:
> * Guillem Jover , 2011-06-06, 09:55:
> >I'd even go further and combine that with dpkg-buildpackage
> >stopping to set compilation flags on the environment, so we only
> >have to deal once with possible mass FTBFS on the archive.
>
> I don'
On Fri, Jun 03, 2011 at 08:25:11PM -0700, Steve Langasek wrote:
> On Fri, Jun 03, 2011 at 05:09:33PM +0100, Roger Leigh wrote:
> > > > Just for the record, I've implemented support in debhelper's dh
> > > > command in #604563. Once applied, this will automatically add support
> > > > to the huge c
On Mon, Jun 06, 2011 at 09:55:25AM +0200, Guillem Jover wrote:
> > To help no existing packages today but make it easy for packages
> > to opt in (and not break the others):
> >
> > 1. Introduce a Build-Options facility for packages to advertise
> > capabilities like this.
> > 2. Teach dpkg-
* Guillem Jover , 2011-06-06, 09:55:
And I think we should just go ahead with a flag day and declare
build-arch/build-indep mandatory (at least for the cases were it makes
sense, see below).
Agreed.
I'd even go further and combine that with dpkg-buildpackage stopping to
set compilation flags
Hi!
On Wed, 2011-03-02 at 03:59:43 -0600, Jonathan Nieder wrote:
> Did you read the rest of the message?
>
> But okay, I am willing to accept that this is an approach we do
> not want to use. Which still leaves us with a number of options.
>
> To help some existing packages today (and break oth
On Sat, Jun 04, 2011 at 04:22:43PM -0500, Jonathan Nieder wrote:
> >> Thanks much! If you'd like, I can try out the two patches from
> >> Bug#598534 and send a comparison there.
> > Thanks for the offer. How do you plan to try them out? Are you proposing a
> > full-archive rebuild?
> I am jus
Steve Langasek wrote:
> Given that you seem to have argued in this same mail for providing both an
> intermediate dpkg-buildpackage switch, and introducing a Build-Options field
> that would have to be populated manually, I'm a little unclear: do you think
> make-first-existing-target is a suffici
On Fri, Jun 03, 2011 at 11:32:13PM -0500, Jonathan Nieder wrote:
> > I don't think a policy "should" actually moves us down that road, because
> > there's no actual penalty for not complying. The issue is *not* that
> > maintainers don't, in general, implement this target (in fact, it's been
> > a
"Bernhard R. Link" writes:
> * Steve Langasek [110604 05:27]:
>> If we're willing to flip the switch on the autobuilders and force
>> maintainers to deal with the breakage, we don't need a policy "should"
>> either... we can go straight to a policy "must" as soon as the switch
>> is flipped (and
Steve Langasek wrote:
> I don't think a policy "should" actually moves us down that road, because
> there's no actual penalty for not complying. The issue is *not* that
> maintainers don't, in general, implement this target (in fact, it's been
> around forever in the dh_make templates),
As a cou
On Fri, Jun 03, 2011 at 05:09:33PM +0100, Roger Leigh wrote:
> > > Just for the record, I've implemented support in debhelper's dh
> > > command in #604563. Once applied, this will automatically add support
> > > to the huge chunk of the archive using "tiny" rules files. cdbs will
> > > be next o
On Tue, Mar 01, 2011 at 09:01:31PM -0600, Jonathan Nieder wrote:
> Roger Leigh wrote:
> [out of order for convenience]
>
> > Just for the record, I've implemented support in debhelper's dh
> > command in #604563. Once applied, this will automatically add support
> > to the huge chunk of the archi
(-cc: Bug#229357)
Jakub Wilk wrote:
> * Jonathan Nieder , 2011-03-01, 21:01:
>> So it seems to me that "dpkg-buildpackage -B" ought to be taught to
>> run the equivalent of
>>
>> debian/rules build-arch
>> if test "$?" = 2
>> then
>> debian/rules build
>> fi
>
> ma
* Jonathan Nieder , 2011-03-01, 21:01:
So it seems to me that "dpkg-buildpackage -B" ought to be taught to
run the equivalent of
debian/rules build-arch
if test "$?" = 2
then
debian/rules build
fi
make exits with code 2 "if any errors were encoun
* Jonathan Nieder [110302 04:03]:
> I just noticed this gem in policy ยง4.9:
>
> If one or both of the targets build-arch and build-indep are
> not provided, then invoking debian/rules with one of the
> not-provided targets as arguments should produce a exit status
> code of
23 matches
Mail list logo
