Re: Easy discovery of ‘debian/rules’ build problems (was: Unsustainable debian/rules as official build entry point?)

2017-10-19 Thread Ian Jackson
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

Re: Unsustainable debian/rules as official build entry point?

2017-10-19 Thread Simon Richter
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

Re: Unsustainable debian/rules as official build entry point?

2017-10-18 Thread Russ Allbery
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

Re: Unsustainable debian/rules as official build entry point?

2017-10-18 Thread Felipe Sateler
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. >>

Easy discovery of ‘debian/rules’ build problems (was: Unsustainable debian/rules as official build entry point?)

2017-10-18 Thread Ben Finney
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

Re: Unsustainable debian/rules as official build entry point?

2017-10-18 Thread Svante Signell
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

Re: Unsustainable debian/rules as official build entry point?

2017-10-18 Thread Wookey
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

Re: Unsustainable debian/rules as official build entry point?

2017-10-18 Thread Samuel Thibault
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

Re: Unsustainable debian/rules as official build entry point?

2017-10-18 Thread Ian Jackson
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

Re: Unsustainable debian/rules as official build entry point?

2017-10-18 Thread Felipe Sateler
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

Re: Unsustainable debian/rules as official build entry point?

2017-10-18 Thread Svante Signell
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?

Re: Unsustainable debian/rules as official build entry point?

2017-10-18 Thread Guillem Jover
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

Re: Unsustainable debian/rules as official build entry point?

2017-10-18 Thread Simon McVittie
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

Re: Unsustainable debian/rules as official build entry point?

2017-10-18 Thread Svante Signell
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? 

Unsustainable debian/rules as official build entry point?

2017-10-18 Thread Guillem Jover
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: -