Bug#868527: [buildd-tools-devel] Bug#868527: Bug#868527: want sbuild --no-source or something

2019-09-04 Thread Sean Whitton
Hello, On Wed 04 Sep 2019 at 08:34AM +02, Johannes Schauer wrote: > okay now I'm confused. I read [1] and it made me understand that users somehow > have to remember this horribly complicated sbuild command in certain > circumstances. > > [1]

Bug#868527: [buildd-tools-devel] Bug#868527: Bug#868527: want sbuild --no-source or something

2019-09-04 Thread Ian Jackson
Johannes Schauer writes ("Re: Bug#868527: [buildd-tools-devel] Bug#868527: Bug#868527: want sbuild --no-source or something"): > I just had another idea. Since the issue at hand is, that you need a > way to transfer the source tree into sbuild and sbuild currently > only suppo

Bug#868527: [buildd-tools-devel] Bug#868527: Bug#868527: want sbuild --no-source or something

2019-09-04 Thread Johannes Schauer
Hi, Quoting Sean Whitton (2019-09-02 20:15:23) > On Mon 02 Sep 2019 at 01:48PM +02, Johannes Schauer wrote: > > I just had another idea. Since the issue at hand is, that you need a way to > > transfer the source tree into sbuild and sbuild currently only supports > > source packages, why can dgit

Bug#868527: [buildd-tools-devel] Bug#868527: Bug#868527: want sbuild --no-source or something

2019-09-02 Thread Sean Whitton
Hello, On Mon 02 Sep 2019 at 01:48PM +02, Johannes Schauer wrote: > I just had another idea. Since the issue at hand is, that you need a way to > transfer the source tree into sbuild and sbuild currently only supports source > packages, why can dgit not be amended to build a temporary source

Bug#868527: [buildd-tools-devel] Bug#868527: Bug#868527: want sbuild --no-source or something

2019-09-02 Thread Johannes Schauer
Hi, Quoting Sean Whitton (2019-09-02 01:00:12) > > It has been more than two years since the last message in this bugreport. > > As dgit becomes more and more mature, maybe we should revisit what sbuild > > could do to improve on the current situation? > > > > For example I would not be opposed

Bug#868527: [buildd-tools-devel] Bug#868527: Bug#868527: want sbuild --no-source or something

2019-09-01 Thread Sean Whitton
Hello Johannes, On Sat 31 Aug 2019 at 12:55PM +02, Johannes Schauer wrote: > It has been more than two years since the last message in this bugreport. As > dgit becomes more and more mature, maybe we should revisit what sbuild could > do > to improve on the current situation? > > For example I

Bug#868527: [buildd-tools-devel] Bug#868527: Bug#868527: want sbuild --no-source or something

2019-08-31 Thread Johannes Schauer
Hi, On Mon, 17 Jul 2017 13:18:54 +0100 Ian Jackson wrote: > Raphael Hertzog writes ("Re: [buildd-tools-devel] Bug#868527: Bug#868527: > want sbuild --no-source or something"): > > On Sun, 16 Jul 2017, Johannes Schauer wrote: > > > Indeed, the task to solv

Bug#868527: [buildd-tools-devel] Bug#868527: Bug#868527: want sbuild --no-source or something

2017-07-17 Thread Ian Jackson
Raphael Hertzog writes ("Re: [buildd-tools-devel] Bug#868527: Bug#868527: want sbuild --no-source or something"): > On Sun, 16 Jul 2017, Johannes Schauer wrote: > > Indeed, the task to solve is how to transfer the source into the chroot. > > > > But is $(dpkg-sou

Bug#868527: [buildd-tools-devel] Bug#868527: Bug#868527: want sbuild --no-source or something

2017-07-17 Thread Raphael Hertzog
Hi, On Sun, 16 Jul 2017, Johannes Schauer wrote: > Indeed, the task to solve is how to transfer the source into the chroot. > > But is $(dpkg-source -Zgzip -z0 --format=1.0 -sn) really the right thing to > do? No, it's clearly a hack and one that might have side effects due to differences (for