Re: Bug#216492: FTBFS (unstable/all) missing build-dep
On Wed, Oct 22, 2003 at 06:22:38AM +0100, Andrew Suffield wrote: Here a refinement the proposal in [EMAIL PROTECTED]: Add at the top of debian/rules BUILD=build-arch build-indep and changes build target to depend on build: $(BUILD) At this point build-arch is emulated by runinng debian/rules build BUILD=build-arch and build-indep by debian/rules build BUILD=build-indep so far it is the cleanest solution. Aside from anything else, the people who want debian/rules to be something other than a makefile will object. Why ? it is a trivial matter to parse the command line for an option like BUILD=binary-arch. I also fail to see how it is any way superior to adding build-arch and build-indep to all remaining rules files and then switching By any chances, do you offer to do that ? dpkg-buildpackage and policy over. Note that it will break in pretty much the same way as #216492 (subject of this thread) if the rules file has not been converted to your scheme. It will not break anything: 1) old debian/rules, new dpkg-buildpackages: debian/rules build BUILD=build-arch since BUILD is not used in debian/rules, this is equivalent to debian/rules build which is OK. 2) new debian/rules, old dpkg-buildpackages: debian/rules build Since BUILD is not overriden, its default value is used and then build: build-arch build-indep which is OK. Cheers, -- Bill. [EMAIL PROTECTED] Imagine a large red swirl here.
Re: Bug#216492: FTBFS (unstable/all) missing build-dep
Op wo 22-10-2003, om 07:22 schreef Andrew Suffield: On Mon, Oct 20, 2003 at 06:32:42PM +0200, Bill Allombert wrote: On Mon, Oct 20, 2003 at 03:30:52PM +0100, Andrew Suffield wrote: The defect is that build-indep is made as root. The advantage over Andrew solution is to not make build-arch as root. We haven't built packages as root for years. This argument seems pretty irrelevant. Buildd do build packages as root, AFAIK They don't. I don't think any of them do. AFAIK, all of them do. Some packages can't be built with fakeroot, but must be built with sudo; to avoid having to build some packages twice, we build everything with sudo (at least my buildd's do). The 'danger' involved is irrelevant, since builds are done inside chroots; and buildd requires sudo access to be able to install packages and for the chroot call anyway, so there's no extra effort required. and there are precisely the targeted audience. Also policy don't mandate packages being buildable under fakeroot. Building under fakeroot is mandatory because the buildds use it. I'm not sure why this is relevant, though. Building under fakeroot isn't always possible; fakeroot implements much, but not everything. -- Wouter Verhelst Debian GNU/Linux -- http://www.debian.org Nederlandstalige Linux-documentatie -- http://nl.linux.org If you're running Microsoft Windows, either scan your computer on viruses, or stop wasting my bandwith and remove me from your addressbook. *now*.
Re: Bug#216492: FTBFS (unstable/all) missing build-dep
Wouter Verhelst [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Buildd do build packages as root, AFAIK They don't. I don't think any of them do. AFAIK, all of them do. Some packages can't be built with fakeroot, but must be built with sudo; to avoid having to build some packages twice, we build everything with sudo (at least my buildd's do). No, the majority of buildds now use fakeroot and have for some time. There aren't any packages these days that don't work with fakeroot. I'd recommend upgrading your buildd(s) to using fakeroot unless there's another reason you can't (e.g. fakeroot doesn't work on your architecture reliably - which use to be the case for mips/el, IIRC). -- James
Trip into fall ur
Receive an absolutely free 3 day 2 night vaction voucher to your choice of several fantastic destinations around the world. Think this is too good to be true? Hotels frequently give away free rooms in order to get you in their hotels hoping you will spend money on their services. Visit the link to claim yours http://best-deals2u.biz/tnl/ Update list preference: best-deals2u.biz/re Will the company move my rock collection from California to Maryland?,`You know,' said Arthur, `it's at times like this, when I'm trapped in a Vogon airlock with a man from Betelgeuse, and about to die from asphyxiation in deep space that I really wish I'd listened to what my mother told me when I was young.' Candidate announced she hadn't had lunch and proceeded to eat a hamburger and french fries in the interviewers office. `...You hadn't exactly gone out of your way to call attention to them had you? I mean like actually telling anyone or anything.'
Re: Package which uses jam (instead make)
On Wed, Oct 22, 2003 at 01:37:36AM +0200, Josip Rodin wrote: On Tue, Oct 21, 2003 at 05:03:53PM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote: If you do not stick to the documented interfaces, you lose the ability in my eyes to express outrage when the interfaces you use change. Except one important difference -- in this case, NOTHING CHANGES in the interface if the policy proposal is accepted. We just disallow some usage that has been explicitley stated to work. No. How did you come to that conclusion? This is another time you're giving the impression of don't take away my makefile rules files!. Well, maybe there's some Grinch out there who wants to steal them away from you, but I assure you that my intentions are not to do that. :) I don't Manoj is accusing you of trying to force him to make his rules files not be Makefiles. He's accusing you of trying to let other people make *their* rules files non-Makefiles, which is objectionable to him, because he likes to play with MAKEFLAGS and VPATH. I disagree with him, however, since Policy does not forbid, even implicitly, a developer from sabotaging the values of these variables in the rules file. In my opinion, Manoj's rationale for not tolerating alternative implementations of make is not grounded on any documented interface, but rather his knowledge of what's going on *behind* the interface. Good programmers know not to take such things for granted. Unless Manoj can come up with a different argument that I find persuasive, I would continue to support a proposal to loosen the definition of a debian/rules file in this respect. -- G. Branden Robinson|Lowery's Law: Debian GNU/Linux |If it jams -- force it. If it [EMAIL PROTECTED] |breaks, it needed replacing anyway. http://people.debian.org/~branden/ | signature.asc Description: Digital signature
