On Thu, 02 Feb 2012, Roger Leigh wrote:
> On Fri, Jan 27, 2012 at 08:22:22AM +0100, Raphael Hertzog wrote:
> > On Fri, 27 Jan 2012, Guillem Jover wrote:
> > > > This fallback is a temporary measure until all packages have been
> > > > converted to properly support the build-arch and build-i
On Fri, Jan 27, 2012 at 08:22:22AM +0100, Raphael Hertzog wrote:
> On Fri, 27 Jan 2012, Guillem Jover wrote:
> > > This fallback is a temporary measure until all packages have been
> > > converted to properly support the build-arch and build-indep targets.
> Updated patch attached.
> +
On Fri, 2012-01-27 at 08:22:22 +0100, Raphael Hertzog wrote:
> On Fri, 27 Jan 2012, Guillem Jover wrote:
> > > This fallback is a temporary measure until all packages have been
> > > converted to properly support the build-arch and build-indep targets.
> >
> > Actually thinking about this,
On Fri, 27 Jan 2012, Guillem Jover wrote:
> > This fallback is a temporary measure until all packages have been
> > converted to properly support the build-arch and build-indep targets.
>
> Actually thinking about this, making this temporary will imply that
> once this would get removed ol
On Tue, 2012-01-24 at 12:25:40 +0100, Raphael Hertzog wrote:
> Ok, then I suggest to go ahead with the attached patch. If I don't hear
> any objections, I'll push it later this week.
> commit 557b5809eef183da2e4907e994dabaa9273e7e0b
> Author: Raphaël Hertzog
> Date: Tue Jan 24 11:59:44 2012 +0
On Tue, 24 Jan 2012, Russ Allbery wrote:
> Raphael Hertzog writes:
>
> > Ok, then I suggest to go ahead with the attached patch. If I don't hear
> > any objections, I'll push it later this week.
>
> > This one uses build-arch/build-indep by default but falls back to build
> > if "make -qn" says
Raphael Hertzog writes:
> Ok, then I suggest to go ahead with the attached patch. If I don't hear
> any objections, I'll push it later this week.
> This one uses build-arch/build-indep by default but falls back to build
> if "make -qn" says the target is not supported.
> The number of packages
Hi,
On Fri, 20 Jan 2012, Guillem Jover wrote:
> I think I've stated my take on this at least in #604397. In any case
> I'm fine with mostly any solution ranging (in no particular order)
> from a global activation of the targets on a flag day to incremental
> activation depending on the Build-Depen
Hi!
On Thu, 2012-01-12 at 16:47:18 +, Roger Leigh wrote:
> On Thu, Jan 12, 2012 at 05:27:40PM +0100, Raphael Hertzog wrote:
> > On Thu, 12 Jan 2012, Roger Leigh wrote:
> > > At this point, we have one working and well tested solution.
> >
> > Which one are you referring to ?
>
> I'm referrin
On Thu, Jan 12, 2012 at 05:27:40PM +0100, Raphael Hertzog wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On Thu, 12 Jan 2012, Roger Leigh wrote:
> > At this point, we have one working and well tested solution.
>
> Which one are you referring to ?
I'm referring to using "make -qn" (with or without the additional
presence of t
Hi,
On Thu, 12 Jan 2012, Roger Leigh wrote:
> At this point, we have one working and well tested solution.
Which one are you referring to ?
> Is there any point in waiting on the TC at this point given that it's
> really the only sensible choice (as in, it's been tested on the whole
> archive an
On Mon, Jan 02, 2012 at 11:36:50AM +0100, Raphael Hertzog wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On Sat, 23 Jul 2011, Steve Langasek wrote:
> > Discussion appears to have died out on this thread, so it doesn't appear
> > anyone from the TC is waiting for more information in order to make up their
> > mind and I think i
Hi,
On Sat, 23 Jul 2011, Steve Langasek wrote:
> Discussion appears to have died out on this thread, so it doesn't appear
> anyone from the TC is waiting for more information in order to make up their
> mind and I think it's (past) time to call a vote on this.
Can we get a vote and a decision, pl
Raphael Hertzog writes ("Re: draft ballot: please rule on how to implement
debian/rules build-arch"):
> A squeeze system with a backported dpkg without auto-detection will fail
> to build many squeeze packages even if we manage to fix them all in sid.
> That would be a s
On Sat, 23 Jul 2011, Bdale Garbee wrote:
> On Sat, 23 Jul 2011 15:45:08 +0200, Steve Langasek wrote:
> > BTW, another option for the long-term solution which we haven't really
> > addressed head-on is that dpkg-buildpackage could detect whether both
> > arch-indep and arch-dep packages are present
On Tue, Jul 26, 2011 at 10:32:12PM +0200, Carsten Hey wrote:
> * Steve Langasek [2011-07-23 15:45 +0200]:
> > BTW, another option for the long-term solution which we haven't really
> > addressed head-on is that dpkg-buildpackage could detect whether both
> > arch-indep and arch-dep packages are pre
* Steve Langasek [2011-07-23 15:45 +0200]:
> BTW, another option for the long-term solution which we haven't really
> addressed head-on is that dpkg-buildpackage could detect whether both
> arch-indep and arch-dep packages are present in debian/control, and use
> build-arch *only* when both are pre
Quoting Bdale Garbee (bd...@gag.com):
> On Sun, 24 Jul 2011 20:36:14 +0100, Ian Jackson
> wrote:
> > > - Lintian doesn't warn about missing build-* targets yet, so many
> > > maintainers are not aware that their package are affected by this issue.
> >
> > Is this still true ?
>
> No. Lintian h
On Sun, 24 Jul 2011 20:36:14 +0100, Ian Jackson
wrote:
> > - Lintian doesn't warn about missing build-* targets yet, so many
> > maintainers are not aware that their package are affected by this issue.
>
> Is this still true ?
No. Lintian has been warning me about the missing targets .. I'm no
On Sun, Jul 24, 2011 at 10:19:10PM +0200, Steve Langasek wrote:
> > Maybe we're going to end up with "break n% of the archive" as the
> > least-hated answer...
> Well, I was planning on voting "break n% of the archive" before FD for the
^^
On Sun, Jul 24, 2011 at 05:22:45PM +0100, Ian Jackson wrote:
> Russ Allbery writes ("Re: draft ballot: please rule on how to implement
> debian/rules build-arch"):
> > Steve Langasek writes:
> > > BTW, another option for the long-term solution which we haven'
On Sun, Jul 24, 2011 at 08:14:55PM +0200, Guillem Jover wrote:
> On Sat, 2011-07-23 at 15:45:08 +0200, Steve Langasek wrote:
> > BTW, another option for the long-term solution which we haven't really
> > addressed head-on is that dpkg-buildpackage could detect whether both
> > arch-indep and arch-d
Ian Jackson writes:
> Guillem Jover writes:
>> - Lintian doesn't warn about missing build-* targets yet, so many
>> maintainers are not aware that their package are affected by this issue.
> Is this still true ?
No, Lintian has been warning since 2.5.1.
--
Russ Allbery (r...@debian.org)
Guillem Jover writes ("Re: draft ballot: please rule on how to implement
debian/rules build-arch"):
> In the thread in debian-policy I also proposed [0] another small variation
> for this, which would imply a two stage transition, reducing the immediate
> simultaneous FTBFS.
Hi!
On Sat, 2011-07-23 at 15:45:08 +0200, Steve Langasek wrote:
> BTW, another option for the long-term solution which we haven't really
> addressed head-on is that dpkg-buildpackage could detect whether both
> arch-indep and arch-dep packages are present in debian/control, and use
> build-arch *o
Russ Allbery writes ("Re: draft ballot: please rule on how to implement
debian/rules build-arch"):
> Steve Langasek writes:
> > BTW, another option for the long-term solution which we haven't really
> > addressed head-on is that dpkg-buildpackage could detect whethe
Steve Langasek writes:
> BTW, another option for the long-term solution which we haven't really
> addressed head-on is that dpkg-buildpackage could detect whether both
> arch-indep and arch-dep packages are present in debian/control, and use
> build-arch *only* when both are present.
I think thi
On Sat, 23 Jul 2011 15:45:08 +0200, Steve Langasek wrote:
Non-text part: multipart/signed
> Discussion appears to have died out on this thread, so it doesn't appear
> anyone from the TC is waiting for more information in order to make up their
> mind and I think it's (past) time to call a vote on
Hi folks,
Discussion appears to have died out on this thread, so it doesn't appear
anyone from the TC is waiting for more information in order to make up their
mind and I think it's (past) time to call a vote on this.
I am expanding on the original set of ballot options I'd proposed to include
ad
29 matches
Mail list logo
