Your message dated Tue, 7 Oct 2014 18:46:11 +0200
with message-id <[email protected]>
and subject line Re: Bug#757719: [Regression] dpkg-buildpackge -b -B isn't
accepted anymore
has caused the Debian Bug report #757719,
regarding [Regression] dpkg-buildpackge -b -B isn't accepted anymore
to be marked as done.
This means that you claim that the problem has been dealt with.
If this is not the case it is now your responsibility to reopen the
Bug report if necessary, and/or fix the problem forthwith.
(NB: If you are a system administrator and have no idea what this
message is talking about, this may indicate a serious mail system
misconfiguration somewhere. Please contact [email protected]
immediately.)
--
757719: http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=757719
Debian Bug Tracking System
Contact [email protected] with problems
--- Begin Message ---
Package: dpkg-dev
Version: 1.17.11
Severity: important
$ dpkg-buildpackage -b -B
dpkg-buildpackage: cannot combine -b and -B
Use --help for program usage information.
is there a reason to reject this?
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
Hi!
On Mon, 2014-08-11 at 14:59:37 +0200, Guillem Jover wrote:
> On Sun, 2014-08-10 at 22:07:42 +0200, Matthias Klose wrote:
> > Am 10.08.2014 um 21:59 schrieb Guillem Jover:
> > > On Sun, 2014-08-10 at 21:13:10 +0200, Matthias Klose wrote:
> > >> Package: dpkg-dev
> > >> Version: 1.17.11
> > >> Severity: important
> > >>
> > >> $ dpkg-buildpackage -b -B
> > >> dpkg-buildpackage: cannot combine -b and -B
> > >>
> > >> Use --help for program usage information.
> > >>
> > >> is there a reason to reject this?
> > >
> > > Yes. The behaviour of the various build type selection was not really
> > > consistent, you could not combine source build options with binary build
> > > ones and for binary builds it would accept several of them, but not
> > > really combine them, the last option would win. It would be even more
> > > confusing with the new -g and -G options.
> > >
> > > Were you expecting those options to have a combined effect? Or for the
> > > last to win?
> >
> > my interpretation of
> >
> > -b is not to build architecture dependent packages (and not to
> > re-create the dsc file).
> >
> >
> > - B is to do the above and not to build architecture
> > dependent packages
>
> I guess there's a typo there somewhere, otherwise it'd mean you
> interpret both to do exactly the same. In any case this does not quite
> answer the questions I posted above. :)
As agreed off-bug, I'm closing now this report.
Thanks,
Guillem
--- End Message ---
