On Fri, Oct 27, 2006, martin f krafft wrote: > > /usr/share/doc/pbuilder/examples/pbuilder-distribution.sh is another > > solution. > > Do you agree this feature can be handled by end-user configuration? > Certainly. I've been using > http://svn.madduck.net/pub/bin/pbuilder/plogin, which can be > symlinked to pexecute, pbuild, pupdate, and pclean. Those five take > care of my pbuilder needs. To build packages, I use pbuild, or, if > that's not available, the same sort of idea in dbuild: > http://svn.madduck.net/pub/bin/debian/dbuild.
Your wrappers are full or personal customizations. I think a lot of people are customizing their systems like this. Concerning this particular config, basetgz (but basepath suffers from the same problems), I'm not sure it would be wise to specialize the default name. The reasons against the change I see are: - this would make it rather hard to handle dist-upgrades of the contents of the pbuilder (how do we detect a change from sarge to etch? should we rename the tarball after the upgrade?) or mixtures of various distribution (how do you name a pbuilder which is setup for sid + $company repository?) - this naming scheme is arbitrary, we could base the name on the login of the unix user doing "sudo pbuilder create" - this is easily configurable, we already found three completely different implementations of this config The reason I see in favor of the change I see is: - would make it easier to have out of the box support for creation and usage of one pbuilder per dist The most flexible approach remains (IMO) the current one where this is simply configurable. Out of curiosity: what's this "phoenix" shell you're using? -- Loïc Minier <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
