Hello Jonathan,
On Thu, Nov 30 2017, Jonathan Nieder wrote:
> Thanks. As a followup, I'm a little confused at what I think is a
> wording issue:
>
>> + To avoid
>> + inconsistency between repeated builds of a package, the
>> + autobuilders will default to selecting the first alternative, after
>
Jonathan Nieder writes:
> This means if I write
> Build-Depends: a | b
> then it will always use 'a', regardless of the release, right?
If 'a' is not installable, I thought it would then install 'b', but
perhaps I'm wrong about how the buildds work?
If 'b' is already installed, I also d
Hi,
Sean Whitton wrote:
> On Thu, Nov 30 2017, Simon McVittie wrote:
>> Other than that, seconded. I'm not sure whether this is necessarily
>> how the autobuilders *should* work, but there's value in documenting
>> how the autobuilders *do* work.
>
> Thank you for reviewing this bug.
>
> Since Se
Should this also make explicit which Debian suites have this restriction?
I thought this rule also applied to backports having found [0] in a list
archive search, and hence have been explicitly changing dependencies for
backports [1] instead of using alternatives.
However after finding this p
Processing control commands:
> tag -1 +pending
Bug #614807 [debian-policy] debian-policy: Please document autobuilder-imposed
build-dependency alternative restrictions
Added tag(s) pending.
--
614807: https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=614807
Debian Bug Tracking System
Contact ow
control: tag -1 +pending
Hello Simon,
On Thu, Nov 30 2017, Simon McVittie wrote:
> 6½ years later, ideally this would mention Build-Depends-Arch too.
>
> Other than that, seconded. I'm not sure whether this is necessarily
> how the autobuilders *should* work, but there's value in documenting
> h
On Sat, 26 Feb 2011 at 14:21:13 +0100, Sean Finney wrote:
> The Debian autobuilders only make use of the first alternative
> in a set of alternatives, in order to guarantee consistent,
> reproducible builds. This does not include architecture
> restrictions, because architecture reduction takes pl
On Sat, Feb 26, 2011 at 10:25:48PM +, Roger Leigh wrote:
> On Sat, Feb 26, 2011 at 10:39:51AM -0800, Steve Langasek wrote:
> > On Wed, Feb 23, 2011 at 05:52:27PM +0100, Cyril Brulebois wrote:
> > > Tiny question: you say it eases backports. But then backports get
> > > autobuilt on debian buil
On Sat, Feb 26, 2011 at 10:39:51AM -0800, Steve Langasek wrote:
> On Wed, Feb 23, 2011 at 05:52:27PM +0100, Cyril Brulebois wrote:
>
> > Tiny question: you say it eases backports. But then backports get
> > autobuilt on debian buildds, so will likely use the same set of
> > packages as say unstabl
On Sat, Feb 26, 2011 at 02:21:13PM +0100, Sean Finney wrote:
> Hi all,
>
>
> On Wed, 2011-02-23 at 18:22 +, Roger Leigh wrote:
>
> > Feel free to phrase it better, or even remove that part, if it's
> > unclear or not too helpful.
>
> How about the attached? It also condenses the text and m
On Wed, Feb 23, 2011 at 05:52:27PM +0100, Cyril Brulebois wrote:
> Roger Leigh (23/02/2011):
> > From: Roger Leigh
> > Date: Wed, 23 Feb 2011 15:14:56 +
> > Subject: [PATCH] Document restrictions on alternative build dependencies
> > The Debian autobuilders only make use of the first altern
Hi all,
On Wed, 2011-02-23 at 18:22 +, Roger Leigh wrote:
> Feel free to phrase it better, or even remove that part, if it's
> unclear or not too helpful.
How about the attached? It also condenses the text and makes it a
footnote just a bit further up, as it seemed a bit more appropriate
t
On Wed, Feb 23, 2011 at 09:09:09PM +0100, Sean Finney wrote:
> On Wed, 2011-02-23 at 18:22 +, Roger Leigh wrote:
> > Yes, this might need rewording. Some people claimed it was useful for
> > backports, so if the backports buildds are using the aptitude resolver,
> > they could make use of the
On Wed, 2011-02-23 at 18:22 +, Roger Leigh wrote:
> Yes, this might need rewording. Some people claimed it was useful for
> backports, so if the backports buildds are using the aptitude resolver,
> they could make use of the alternatives without any changes to
> debian/control; maybe it could
On Wed, Feb 23, 2011 at 05:52:27PM +0100, Cyril Brulebois wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Roger Leigh (23/02/2011):
> > From: Roger Leigh
> > Date: Wed, 23 Feb 2011 15:14:56 +
> > Subject: [PATCH] Document restrictions on alternative build dependencies
> >
> > The Debian autobuilders only make use of the
Hi,
Roger Leigh (23/02/2011):
> From: Roger Leigh
> Date: Wed, 23 Feb 2011 15:14:56 +
> Subject: [PATCH] Document restrictions on alternative build dependencies
>
> The Debian autobuilders only make use of the first alternative
> in a set of alternatives, in order to guarantee consistent,
>
Package: debian-policy
Version: 3.9.1.0
Severity: normal
Patch attached.
-- System Information:
Debian Release: 6.0
APT prefers stable
APT policy: (500, 'stable')
Architecture: i386 (i686)
Kernel: Linux 2.6.32.27-kvm-i386-20110114 (SMP w/1 CPU core)
Locale: LANG=en_GB.UTF-8, LC_CTYPE=en_GB.U
17 matches
Mail list logo
