Ben Finney writes ("Easy discovery of ‘debian/rules’ build problems (was:
Unsustainable debian/rules as official build entry point?)"):
> From the rest of your message I infer that the mention of “one consumer”
> there refers to (current or future) ‘dpkg-buildpackage’, is th
Hi,
On 18.10.2017 11:36, Guillem Jover wrote:
> Using dpkg-buildpackage as the official build entry point would allow
> for much debian/rules refactoring and reduction, and optimizations.
The important bit isn't whether dpkg-buildpackage is the official entry
point, because that isn't what
Guillem Jover writes:
> Given the above, and that these are clear regressions, it seems
> obvious to me that we are (collectively) not checking/using debian/rules
> as the official build entry point interface.
> And I've got to question whether we should keep supporting it
On Wed, 18 Oct 2017 16:31:58 +0100, Wookey wrote:
> On 2017-10-18 12:08 +, Felipe Sateler wrote:
>> On Wed, 18 Oct 2017 11:36:41 +0200, Guillem Jover wrote:
>>
>> > And I've got to question whether we should keep supporting it or just
>> > declare dpkg-buildpackage to be that entry point.
>>
Ian Jackson writes:
> After there is only one consumer [of the package-provided
> ‘debian/rules’ build interface], it will be somewhat easier to change
> [the policy so that interface is not the standard].
>From the rest of your message I infer that the mention
On Wed, 2017-10-18 at 16:31 +0100, Wookey wrote:
> On 2017-10-18 12:08 +, Felipe Sateler wrote:
> I quite often use the debian/rules binary{-arch,-indep} interface when
> doing porting/bootstrapping work (i.e the package built but something
> goes wrong in the packaging process so I want to
On 2017-10-18 12:08 +, Felipe Sateler wrote:
> On Wed, 18 Oct 2017 11:36:41 +0200, Guillem Jover wrote:
>
> > And I've got to question whether we should keep supporting it or just
> > declare dpkg-buildpackage to be that entry point.
>
> I think it makes sense to declare dpkg-buildpackage
Svante Signell, on mer. 18 oct. 2017 13:51:25 +0200, wrote:
> On Wed, 2017-10-18 at 11:54 +0100, Simon McVittie wrote:
> > On Wed, 18 Oct 2017 at 11:57:55 +0200, Svante Signell wrote:
> > > Building some packages for GNU/Hurd has been impossible in the
> > > past, since also tests are run under
Guillem Jover writes ("Unsustainable debian/rules as official build entry
point?"):
> Given the above, and that these are clear regressions, it seems
> obvious to me that we are (collectively) not checking/using debian/rules
> as the official build entry point interface
On Wed, 18 Oct 2017 11:36:41 +0200, Guillem Jover wrote:
> And I've got to question whether we should keep supporting it or just
> declare dpkg-buildpackage to be that entry point.
I think it makes sense to declare dpkg-buildpackage the official entry
point. Reasons for:
1. It is already the
On Wed, 2017-10-18 at 11:54 +0100, Simon McVittie wrote:
> On Wed, 18 Oct 2017 at 11:57:55 +0200, Svante Signell wrote:
> > Building some packages for GNU/Hurd has been impossible in the
> > past, since also tests are run under fakeroot.
>
> Is there some reason why this would be Hurd-specific?
On Wed, 2017-10-18 at 11:54:57 +0100, Simon McVittie wrote:
> On Wed, 18 Oct 2017 at 11:57:55 +0200, Svante Signell wrote:
> > Building some packages for GNU/Hurd has been impossible in the past,
> > since also tests are run under fakeroot.
>
> Is there some reason why this would be
On Wed, 18 Oct 2017 at 11:57:55 +0200, Svante Signell wrote:
> Building some packages for GNU/Hurd has been impossible in the past,
> since also tests are run under fakeroot.
Is there some reason why this would be Hurd-specific? Is fakeroot's
emulation of real root significantly more limited on
On Wed, 2017-10-18 at 11:36 +0200, Guillem Jover wrote:
> Hi!
>
> So, dpkg 1.19.0 and 1.19.0.1 had a bug where the build target was not
> being called when building packages.
Thanks, this problem has finally been revealed officially. Are you sure
this problem is not older than version 1.19.x?
Hi!
So, dpkg 1.19.0 and 1.19.0.1 had a bug where the build target was not
being called when building packages.
Apparently this caused mass build failures, all due to packages (or
their helpers) being very Debian policy non-compliant! These are all
MUST requirements. Stuff like:
-
15 matches
Mail list logo