On Tue, Mar 20, 2012 at 01:33:05PM -0700, Russ Allbery wrote:
> Hearing no objections, I call for a TC vote on the following ballot:
>
> A. dpkg-buildpackage, when doing a binary-only build (-B), should probe
>the package with "make -qn" to see if the build-arch target appears to
>be imple
* Russ Allbery (r...@debian.org) [120320 21:48]:
> Hearing no objections, I call for a TC vote on the following ballot:
>
> A. dpkg-buildpackage, when doing a binary-only build (-B), should probe
>the package with "make -qn" to see if the build-arch target appears to
>be implemented. If s
<#part sign=pgpmime>
On Tue, 20 Mar 2012 13:33:05 -0700, Russ Allbery wrote:
> Hearing no objections, I call for a TC vote on the following ballot:
I vote AB.
Bdale
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-ctte-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@l
Russ Allbery writes ("Bug#629385: Request for TC to rule on a course of action
for supporting build-arch"):
> Hearing no objections, I call for a TC vote on the following ballot:
>
> A. dpkg-buildpackage, when doing a binary-only build (-B), should probe
>the package
On Tue, 20 Mar 2012, Russ Allbery wrote:
> Hearing no objections, I call for a TC vote on the following ballot:
>
> A. dpkg-buildpackage, when doing a binary-only build (-B), should probe
>the package with "make -qn" to see if the build-arch target appears to
>be implemented. If so, it sh
Russ Allbery writes:
> A. dpkg-buildpackage, when doing a binary-only build (-B), should probe
>the package with "make -qn" to see if the build-arch target appears to
>be implemented. If so, it should use "debian/rules build-arch" to
>build the package instead of "debian/rules build"
Hearing no objections, I call for a TC vote on the following ballot:
A. dpkg-buildpackage, when doing a binary-only build (-B), should probe
the package with "make -qn" to see if the build-arch target appears to
be implemented. If so, it should use "debian/rules build-arch" to
build the
I believe that the discussion of this has reached a conclusion and the
dpkg maintainers are moving forward with an implementation. At this
point, it seems like the right thing for the Technical Committee to do is
to affirm that we agree with the approach arrived at.
I propose the following ballot
On Sun, Oct 30, 2011 at 11:30:55AM -0700, Russ Allbery wrote:
> Niels Thykier writes:
>
> > As pointed out earlier, only packages building both arch:all and
> > non-arch:all packages benefit from this. With this in mind, we can
> > "trivially" create a new lintian tag that finds source packages
Niels Thykier writes:
> As pointed out earlier, only packages building both arch:all and
> non-arch:all packages benefit from this. With this in mind, we can
> "trivially" create a new lintian tag that finds source packages building
> arch:all + non-arch:all packages without build-{arch,indep} t
Hi,
I have a 6th (?) proposal.
Lintian recently got checks for finding packages without build-arch and
build-indep targets. Currently it finds some 5600 packages and with the
current rate it will take nearly 2 years to fix all of them.
As pointed out earlier, only packages building both arch:a
On Tue, Jun 07, 2011 at 09:29:12AM +0200, Bill Allombert wrote:
> On Mon, Jun 06, 2011 at 04:02:36PM -0700, Steve Langasek wrote:
> > Hi Bill,
> >
> > (Sending this to 629...@bugs.debian.org, which is the cloned bug actually
> > assigned to the TC...)
Too much magic, but thanks anyway.
> > On Tu
On Sat, Jun 11, 2011 at 12:19:47PM +0100, Roger Leigh wrote:
> On Sat, Jun 11, 2011 at 01:04:00AM -0700, Steve Langasek wrote:
> > Hi Roger,
> >
> > On Sat, Jun 11, 2011 at 02:02:52AM +0100, Roger Leigh wrote:
> > > On Tue, Jun 07, 2011 at 11:14:14AM +0200, Tollef Fog Heen wrote:
> > > > ]] Steve
Steve Langasek writes:
> Hi Roger,
>
> On Sat, Jun 11, 2011 at 02:02:52AM +0100, Roger Leigh wrote:
>> Because unstable was changing between the rebuilds, some of the
>> failures are likely due to churn, including multiarch work, so a
>> failure does not necessarily implicate the patch being test
On Sun, 12 Jun 2011 21:29:11 +0100, Roger Leigh wrote:
> I am repeating the builds using a static mirror of unstable as of
> today.
Thank you!
Bdale
pgp9IZOhNTgVz.pgp
Description: PGP signature
On Sat, Jun 11, 2011 at 01:04:00AM -0700, Steve Langasek wrote:
> On Sat, Jun 11, 2011 at 02:02:52AM +0100, Roger Leigh wrote:
> > Because unstable was changing between the rebuilds, some of the
> > failures are likely due to churn, including multiarch work, so a
> > failure does not necessarily im
* Steve Langasek (vor...@debian.org) [110612 01:09]:
> On Tue, Jun 07, 2011 at 09:41:18AM +0200, Raphael Hertzog wrote:
> > ---
> > Turn on direct use of "debian/rules build-arch" unless the package seems
> > to be missing the target according to "make -qn". In that case output a
> > warning that a
On Sat, 11 Jun 2011, Steve Langasek wrote:
> This actually reads to me the same as option 1. What distinction are you
> meaning to draw here? It's not very "direct" use of build-arch if we're
> checking 'make -qn' first. The only other differences I see here are
> issuing a warning, and explicit
On Tue, Jun 07, 2011 at 09:41:18AM +0200, Raphael Hertzog wrote:
> On Mon, 06 Jun 2011, Steve Langasek wrote:
> > If this were to be put to a vote today, I would propose the following ballot
> > options:
> > 1) Implement support for calling 'debian/rules build-arch' in place of
> > 'debian/ru
Ian Jackson writes:
> (Sorry to just join this conversation; I was on holiday in Wales,
> which was excellent.)
> Raphael Hertzog writes:
>> I was going to suggest that. The way I prepared the corresponding patch
>> (the one you called "auto-detection") already does that in fact. So the
>> few
(Sorry to just join this conversation; I was on holiday in Wales,
which was excellent.)
Raphael Hertzog writes ("Re: Request for TC to rule on a course of action for
supporting build-arch"):
> I was going to suggest that. The way I prepared the corresponding patch
> (the one
On Sat, Jun 11, 2011 at 12:19:47PM +0100, Roger Leigh wrote:
> (7) Packages failing due to broken autodetection
I'm afraid the query wasn't entirely correct for this one. The
real list is this:
# SELECT o.package, o.version
FROM orig AS o
INNER JOIN auto AS a
ON o.package=a.package AND o.version
On Sat, 11 Jun 2011, Roger Leigh wrote:
> I would like to suggest that it may be preferable for dpkg-buildpackage
> to implement both
> - make -qn autodetection and
> - Build-Features
>
> This will permit the vast majority of packages to build using
> build-arch today, without any modification. I
On Sat, Jun 11, 2011 at 01:37:05PM +0200, Jakub Wilk wrote:
> * Roger Leigh , 2011-06-11, 12:19:
> >7) Failed autodetection
> > - autodetection failed to detect an existing build-arch target
> > - unconditional used build-arch
> > A complete list of packages is at the bottom; these are selected
* Roger Leigh , 2011-06-11, 12:19:
7) Failed autodetection
- autodetection failed to detect an existing build-arch target
- unconditional used build-arch
A complete list of packages is at the bottom; these are selected
examples.
Example: spring_0.82.7.1+dfsg1-3
In this package, the
On Sat, Jun 11, 2011 at 01:04:00AM -0700, Steve Langasek wrote:
> Hi Roger,
>
> On Sat, Jun 11, 2011 at 02:02:52AM +0100, Roger Leigh wrote:
> > On Tue, Jun 07, 2011 at 11:14:14AM +0200, Tollef Fog Heen wrote:
> > > ]] Steve Langasek
> > Summarised:
> > - autodetection with "make -qn" breaks few,
Hi Roger,
On Sat, Jun 11, 2011 at 02:02:52AM +0100, Roger Leigh wrote:
> On Tue, Jun 07, 2011 at 11:14:14AM +0200, Tollef Fog Heen wrote:
> > ]] Steve Langasek
> > | 4) Turn on direct use of 'debian/rules build-arch' on the autobuilders
> > for
> > | all packages in unstable and experiment
Roger Leigh writes:
> On Tue, Jun 07, 2011 at 11:14:14AM +0200, Tollef Fog Heen wrote:
>> ]] Steve Langasek
>>
>> Hi,
>>
>> | 4) Turn on direct use of 'debian/rules build-arch' on the autobuilders for
>> | all packages in unstable and experimental immediately, with no fallback
>> | if
On Tue, Jun 07, 2011 at 11:14:14AM +0200, Tollef Fog Heen wrote:
> ]] Steve Langasek
>
> Hi,
>
> | 4) Turn on direct use of 'debian/rules build-arch' on the autobuilders for
> | all packages in unstable and experimental immediately, with no fallback
> | if the target does not exist; req
Bill Allombert writes:
> I have proposed an alternative in the past (which did not get any
> support, though): Decide that packages that have a Build-Depends-Indep:
> field must implement build-arch/build-indep. This is probably already
> the case.
> This has the same advantage than Build-Optio
On Mon, Jun 06, 2011 at 01:04:59PM -0700, Russ Allbery wrote:
> Andreas Barth writes:
>
> > Option 1 also implies forcing debian/rules to be a Makefile, which is
> > think is sensible.
>
> Policy already requires this. The only package in the archive for which
> this is not already the case is
On Tue, Jun 07, 2011 at 11:56:01AM +0100, Roger Leigh wrote:
> On Tue, Jun 07, 2011 at 11:14:14AM +0200, Tollef Fog Heen wrote:
> > ]] Steve Langasek
> >
> > Hi,
> >
> > | 4) Turn on direct use of 'debian/rules build-arch' on the autobuilders
> > for
> > | all packages in unstable and expe
* Tollef Fog Heen (tfh...@err.no) [110607 11:14]:
> ]] Steve Langasek
>
> Hi,
>
> | 4) Turn on direct use of 'debian/rules build-arch' on the autobuilders for
> | all packages in unstable and experimental immediately, with no fallback
> | if the target does not exist; requires a corresp
On Tue, Jun 07, 2011 at 11:14:14AM +0200, Tollef Fog Heen wrote:
> ]] Steve Langasek
>
> Hi,
>
> | 4) Turn on direct use of 'debian/rules build-arch' on the autobuilders for
> | all packages in unstable and experimental immediately, with no fallback
> | if the target does not exist; req
On 07/06/11 at 09:41 +0200, Raphael Hertzog wrote:
> Lucas, can you do a full rebuild with the packages below ?
> http://people.debian.org/~hertzog/packages/dpkg-dev_1.16.1~buildarch.1_all.deb
> http://people.debian.org/~hertzog/packages/libdpkg-perl_1.16.1~buildarch.1_all.deb
Hi,
Since Tollef al
]] Steve Langasek
Hi,
| 4) Turn on direct use of 'debian/rules build-arch' on the autobuilders for
| all packages in unstable and experimental immediately, with no fallback
| if the target does not exist; requires a corresponding update to Policy
| and mass updates to fix packages t
(Bcc to debian-dpkg for info)
On Mon, 06 Jun 2011, Steve Langasek wrote:
> If this were to be put to a vote today, I would propose the following ballot
> options:
>
> 1) Implement support for calling 'debian/rules build-arch' in place of
> 'debian/rules build' by checking for the presence of
On Mon, Jun 06, 2011 at 04:02:36PM -0700, Steve Langasek wrote:
> Hi Bill,
>
> (Sending this to 629...@bugs.debian.org, which is the cloned bug actually
> assigned to the TC...)
>
> On Tue, Jun 07, 2011 at 12:06:18AM +0200, Bill Allombert wrote:
> > The proposal 3) (which is implemented in dpkg a
Hi Bill,
(Sending this to 629...@bugs.debian.org, which is the cloned bug actually
assigned to the TC...)
On Tue, Jun 07, 2011 at 12:06:18AM +0200, Bill Allombert wrote:
> The proposal 3) (which is implemented in dpkg as of today) was devised
> following a discussion in Debian policy bug #218893
Bill Allombert writes:
> The proposal 3) (which is implemented in dpkg as of today) was devised
> following a discussion in Debian policy bug #218893 as a compromise
> solution that was agreeable to everyone, then a patch to dpkg was
> written (bug #229357). For reasons beyond my control, the pat
On Mon, 6 Jun 2011 02:15:37 -0700, Steve Langasek wrote:
> If this were to be put to a vote today, I would propose the following ballot
> options:
>
> 1) Implement support for calling 'debian/rules build-arch' in place of
> 'debian/rules build' by checking for the presence of the target usin
On Mon, 6 Jun 2011 21:56:22 +0200, Andreas Barth wrote:
> Why 3 below 5?
Introducing a new field that must be filled in and kept (manually) in
sync with information that is already present in the rules file just
doesn't seem like a good solution.
I'm less afraid of 4 than some people would be, p
On Mon, 06 Jun 2011, Lucas Nussbaum wrote:
> On 06/06/11 at 13:35 -0700, Don Armstrong wrote:
> > Happens; do you have any recollection of what the failures were
> > from? [Just trying to make sure that they were failures which were
> > fixable, and not some kind of unforeseen systematic problem.]
On 06/06/11 at 13:35 -0700, Don Armstrong wrote:
> On Mon, 06 Jun 2011, Lucas Nussbaum wrote:
> > On 06/06/11 at 10:29 -0700, Don Armstrong wrote:
> > > On Mon, 06 Jun 2011, Steve Langasek wrote:
> > > > 1) Implement support for calling 'debian/rules build-arch' in place
> > > > of 'debian/rul
On Mon, 06 Jun 2011, Lucas Nussbaum wrote:
> On 06/06/11 at 10:29 -0700, Don Armstrong wrote:
> > On Mon, 06 Jun 2011, Steve Langasek wrote:
> > > 1) Implement support for calling 'debian/rules build-arch' in place
> > > of 'debian/rules build' by checking for the presence of the
> > > tar
On Mon, Jun 06, 2011 at 09:56:22PM +0200, Andreas Barth wrote:
> > > 1) Implement support for calling 'debian/rules build-arch' in place of
> > > 'debian/rules build' by checking for the presence of the target using
> > > 'make -qn'.[1]
> Option 1 also implies forcing debian/rules to be a
* Russ Allbery (r...@debian.org) [110606 22:05]:
> Andreas Barth writes:
>
> > Option 1 also implies forcing debian/rules to be a Makefile, which is
> > think is sensible.
>
> Policy already requires this. The only package in the archive for which
> this is not already the case is "leave".
Sur
Andreas Barth writes:
> Option 1 also implies forcing debian/rules to be a Makefile, which is
> think is sensible.
Policy already requires this. The only package in the archive for which
this is not already the case is "leave".
I don't like option #3 because it's something we'll be stuck with
* Bdale Garbee (bd...@gag.com) [110606 20:59]:
> On Mon, 6 Jun 2011 02:15:37 -0700, Steve Langasek wrote:
> > If this were to be put to a vote today, I would propose the following ballot
> > options:
> >
> > 1) Implement support for calling 'debian/rules build-arch' in place of
> > 'debian/r
On 06/06/11 at 10:29 -0700, Don Armstrong wrote:
> On Mon, 06 Jun 2011, Steve Langasek wrote:
> > 1) Implement support for calling 'debian/rules build-arch' in place
> > of 'debian/rules build' by checking for the presence of the
> > target using 'make -qn'.
>
> From Lucas's test in 2007,
On Mon, 6 Jun 2011 02:15:37 -0700, Steve Langasek wrote:
> If this were to be put to a vote today, I would propose the following ballot
> options:
>
> 1) Implement support for calling 'debian/rules build-arch' in place of
> 'debian/rules build' by checking for the presence of the target usin
Steve Langasek writes:
> Any chance you can elaborate on what didn't work well? I believe this
> will work robustly for packages whose debian/rules is a policy-compliant
> makefile, and I think that the handful of packages which don't could
> reasonably required to, at minimum, return a compatib
Hi Russ,
On Mon, Jun 06, 2011 at 10:12:13AM -0700, Russ Allbery wrote:
> Steve Langasek writes:
> > The Technical Committee has sufficient authority to address this
> > question under any of §6.1.{1,2,4,5}. If you prefer, we could also ask
> > for a referral from the policy editors or the dpkg
On Mon, 06 Jun 2011, Steve Langasek wrote:
> 1) Implement support for calling 'debian/rules build-arch' in place
> of 'debian/rules build' by checking for the presence of the
> target using 'make -qn'.
From Lucas's test in 2007,[2] "Of those 1823 packages, 31 packages failed
to build. Log
Steve Langasek writes:
> The Technical Committee has sufficient authority to address this
> question under any of §6.1.{1,2,4,5}. If you prefer, we could also ask
> for a referral from the policy editors or the dpkg maintainers, to
> eliminate any question of supermajority requirements.
I'm hap
On Mon, 2011-06-06 at 15:59:15 +0200, Bill Allombert wrote:
> On Mon, Jun 06, 2011 at 12:09:34PM +0200, Bill Allombert wrote:
> > On Mon, Jun 06, 2011 at 02:15:37AM -0700, Steve Langasek wrote:
> > > 1) Implement support for calling 'debian/rules build-arch' in place of
> > > 'debian/rules bui
Hi,
On Mon, 06 Jun 2011, Roger Leigh wrote:
> Has the following been considered:
> - adding a command-line option for dpkg-buildpackage to explicitly
> enable particular build-features (overriding the feature in the
> source package).
This has not been suggested yet, I'm not opposed to the id
On Mon, Jun 06, 2011 at 03:59:15PM +0200, Bill Allombert wrote:
> On Mon, Jun 06, 2011 at 12:09:34PM +0200, Bill Allombert wrote:
> > On Mon, Jun 06, 2011 at 02:15:37AM -0700, Steve Langasek wrote:
> > > 1) Implement support for calling 'debian/rules build-arch' in place of
> > > 'debian/rules
Hi,
On Mon, 06 Jun 2011, Steve Langasek wrote:
> 3) Implement support for calling 'debian/rules build-arch' in place of
> 'debian/rules build' if a Build-Options field is set in debian/control
> of the source package specifying that this target is supported.[3]
FYI with the recent discus
unmerge 604397
clone 604397 -1
reassign -1 tech-ctte
retitle -1 Please rule on how to implement debian/rules build-arch
merge 345619 604397
thanks
Fellow Committee members,
I am requesting your assistance in helping the project come to a conclusion
about how we can support the use of the 'build-a
Processing commands for cont...@bugs.debian.org:
> unmerge 604397
Bug#604397: debian-policy: build-arch and build-indep targets are required
Bug#345619: build-arch and build-indep targets should be required
Bug#374029: Build-Depends{,-Indep} as defined is not useful and not followed
Bug#619284: Ch
61 matches
Mail list logo
