Hi Wookey,
Wookey wrote:
> I recently noticed that when building with dpkg-buildpackage there is
> no need for the
>
> DEB_BUILD_GNU_TYPE := $(shell dpkg-architecture -qDEB_BUILD_GNU_TYPE)
> DEB_HOST_GNU_TYPE := $(shell dpkg-architecture -qDEB_HOST_GNU_TYPE)
Don't you mean "?="?
[...]
Hi,
On Thu, 29 Mar 2012, Wookey wrote:
> Anyone know when this happened and what if any, the limitations are?
> It's certainly true in wheezy, squeeze, precise and oineiric.
This has always been the case ever since dpkg-architecture has been
introduced.
But you should not rely on this because c
Now, you can build packages without using dpkg-buildpackage by calling
rules directly, and in that case the rules file would need to call
dpkg-architecture, but someone would have to convince me that that was
an interface worth supporting for non-native builds
The big reason it's worth supporting
On Thu, Mar 29, 2012 at 19:10:05 +0100, Wookey wrote:
> Should a package depending on this behaviour build-dep on a particular
> dpkg version? As it already works in build-essential in stable do the
> same rules apply as essential packages in stable (i.e no explicit
> dependency required)? That wo
+++ Raphael Hertzog [2012-03-29 21:06 +0200]:
> Hi,
>
> On Thu, 29 Mar 2012, Wookey wrote:
> > Anyone know when this happened and what if any, the limitations are?
> > It's certainly true in wheezy, squeeze, precise and oineiric.
>
> This has always been the case ever since dpkg-architecture has
On Thu, 29 Mar 2012, Wookey wrote:
> > But you should not rely on this because calling debian/rules directly
> > must be supported.
>
> Hmm, but if a package cannot use the variables set by
> dpkg-buildpackage and must set them itself, what is the point of
> dpkg-buildpackage setting them? To save
On Fri, 30 Mar 2012 08:06:56 +0200
Raphael Hertzog wrote:
> On Thu, 29 Mar 2012, Wookey wrote:
> > Well, perhaps I shouldn't (and indeed I'd like us to get to a point
> > where we don't), but currently, in practice, non-native builds need
> > other things setting in the environment anyway so even
Wookey writes:
> +++ Raphael Hertzog [2012-03-29 21:06 +0200]:
>> Hi,
>>
>> On Thu, 29 Mar 2012, Wookey wrote:
>> > Anyone know when this happened and what if any, the limitations are?
>> > It's certainly true in wheezy, squeeze, precise and oineiric.
>>
>> This has always been the case ever s
On Thu, Mar 29, 2012 at 09:58:41PM +0200, Julien Cristau wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 29, 2012 at 19:10:05 +0100, Wookey wrote:
>
> > Should a package depending on this behaviour build-dep on a particular
> > dpkg version? As it already works in build-essential in stable do the
> > same rules apply as ess
On Mar 30, 2012 8:40 AM, "Goswin von Brederlow" wrote:
>
> Hopefully dpkg-buildpackage will stop setting those varibales at some
> point so sources that wrongfully depend on the variables being set
> actualy break.
Already happened in version 1.16.1 (#560070).
On Fri, 30 Mar 2012, Neil Williams wrote:
> > Honestly I have never seen anyone doing cross-builds and calling
> > debian/rules manually.
>
> ... only because it *always* fails
>
> I have longed for such support myself at times. It is incredibly
> frustrating to see a cross-build fail 90% of
+++ peter green [2012-03-29 20:06 +0100]:
> >Now, you can build packages without using dpkg-buildpackage by calling
> >rules directly, and in that case the rules file would need to call
> >dpkg-architecture, but someone would have to convince me that that was
> >an interface worth supporting for no
On Fri, Mar 30, 2012 at 14:08:33 +0100, Roger Leigh wrote:
> Would there not be some advantage to making dpkg-buildpackge the
> interface for building? (Not dropping the debian/rules interface,
> of course.) This would permit the automatic setting of all the
> host- and build-related variables w
13 matches
Mail list logo
