On 20/01/10 at 09:30 +0100, Stefano Zacchiroli wrote: > On Tue, Jan 19, 2010 at 03:40:22PM -0800, Russ Allbery wrote: > > Because we want our users to be able to patch and rebuild our software to > > suit their needs. Asking them to set up a chroot build environment is > > asking quite a lot. > > AOL. Yesterday night I drafted a reply (which has lingered in my Draft > box) and was almost word-by-word identical to this. > > In parallel to this, we should probably make easier than now to rebuild > packages properly for our users (sysadms are not necessarily packagers), > and that is proceeding quite well with recent schroot improvements, if > you ask me.
What's the problem with documentation such as https://wiki.ubuntu.com/PbuilderHowto (except it's an Ubuntu documentation)? I think that the process of building with pbuilder is reasonably well documented. > On Tue, Jan 19, 2010 at 04:36:36PM -0800, Russ Allbery wrote: > > > There are two ways to attack that problem: > > > > > (1) We decide that we want to provide the guarantee that packages build > > > the correct way in unclean envs. That mean making such bugs RC, > > > basically, and making efforts to find such bugs. > > > > > (2) We decide that it would be nice if packages don't do too crazy > > > things when built in unclean envs, but provide no guarantee, and > > > recommend the use of pbuilder and schroot + tarballs/lvm when people > > > need guarantees. > > I don't understand why you insist on this aut-aut. Ideally, your (1) is > the right one, but as of know it is (still?) hard to pursue, we put it > as an ideal goal and we proceed towards it. Bugs in package should be > filed (especially in the original case of this thread: heck, they > resulted in two incompatible licenses linked together!), they are not > RC, but they are still bugs. The day we will have a suitable / sure way > to identify this bug in the first place, we will start enforcing it. > > On the same line, this whole issue is one of the reason why we have > relationships like Build-Conflicts. Why having a non-declared > Build-Conflicts shouldn't be a bug? Feel free to start filing bugs. A good start would be the list of source packages[1] from 2008 that probably have a missing build-conflict, since they produced different binary packages (according to debdiff) in an unclean chroot. (that list contains some false positives) [1] http://people.debian.org/~lucas/logs/2008/01/22/bdfh/debdiffs/ -- | Lucas Nussbaum | lu...@lucas-nussbaum.net http://www.lucas-nussbaum.net/ | | jabber: lu...@nussbaum.fr GPG: 1024D/023B3F4F | -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org