+++ Guillem Jover [2013-01-22 17:56 +0100]:
On Tue, 2013-01-22 at 12:47:47 +, Wookey wrote:
+++ Guillem Jover [2012-07-17 05:02 +0200]:
Before I'll consider including something like this, the aforementioned
deployment to see if it really covers all your needs would be nice,
and
+++ Guillem Jover [2012-07-17 05:02 +0200]:
Hi!
On Mon, 2012-07-16 at 22:04:57 -0400, P. J. McDermott wrote:
On 2012-07-11 23:51, Guillem Jover wrote:
I was referring to:
* Introducing build profiles (the specific characters '' could be
changed, this is just an example):
On Tue, 2013-01-22 at 12:47:47 +, Wookey wrote:
+++ Guillem Jover [2012-07-17 05:02 +0200]:
Before I'll consider including something like this, the aforementioned
deployment to see if it really covers all your needs would be nice,
and after that we'd need to propose and discuss this in
Hi!
On Sun, 2012-08-19 at 00:34:43 -0400, P. J. McDermott wrote:
On 2012-07-16 23:02, Guillem Jover wrote:
I'll try to give a more detailed review of
the code in few days.
Have you had a chance to review this patch?
Sorry, not yet, I took some time off Debian, but I hope to take a
look
On 2012-07-16 23:02, Guillem Jover wrote:
I'll try to give a more detailed review of
the code in few days.
Have you had a chance to review this patch?
Since my last mail, I realized that:
* I forgot some documentation for Dpkg::Deps::deps_parse(), and
* A use_profile option was missing
On 2012-07-11 23:51, Guillem Jover wrote:
On Tue, 2012-07-10 at 02:17:22 +0100, Wookey wrote:
+++ Guillem Jover [2012-05-12 04:46 +0200]:
I've not checked the details of the current proposed patch, as I think
the correct overall design should be agreed on first.
I think I might have
Hi!
On Mon, 2012-07-16 at 22:04:57 -0400, P. J. McDermott wrote:
On 2012-07-11 23:51, Guillem Jover wrote:
I was referring to:
* Introducing build profiles (the specific characters '' could be
changed, this is just an example):
Build-Depends: huge (= 1.0) [i386 arm]
On 2012-07-16 23:02, Guillem Jover wrote:
On Mon, 2012-07-16 at 22:04:57 -0400, P. J. McDermott wrote:
The patch does not verify that the profile chosen by the user is
actually specified in the package's control file. I'm not sure if (or
where) that should be done, but it would be fairly easy
On Tue, 2012-07-10 at 02:17:22 +0100, Wookey wrote:
+++ Guillem Jover [2012-05-12 04:46 +0200]:
I've not checked the details of the current proposed patch, as I think
the correct overall design should be agreed on first.
I think I might have mentioned this before but I pondered about
+++ Guillem Jover [2012-05-12 04:46 +0200]:
I've not checked the details of the current proposed patch, as I think
the correct overall design should be agreed on first.
I think I might have mentioned this before but I pondered about this
in more general terms some time ago in:
On 2012-06-09 00:16, Jonathan Nieder wrote:
Wookey wrote:
an uploadable
build should always be done against complete build-deps - anything
built against 'staged' packages must be considered 'tainted'.
Sounds good. If I understand
Jonathan Nieder jrnie...@gmail.com wrote:
Do I understand correctly that in the stage-N build, the installed
versions of all build-time dependencies (and their dependencies, et
cetera) must have build-stage = (N-1)? What about the standard
build? Does it happen repeatedly, incrementing the
Wookey wrote:
an uploadable
build should always be done against complete build-deps - anything
built against 'staged' packages must be considered 'tainted'.
Sounds good. If I understand correctly:
* dpkg-checkbuilddeps: in a stage-N
On 2012-05-12 00:46, Jonathan Nieder wrote:
Jonathan Nieder wrote:
In that approach, as mentioned before
the binary packages should include a special field so the archive
knows to reject them.
Could you give some examples of differences between a stage1 build
Jonathan Nieder jrnie...@gmail.com wrote:
Wookey wrote:
(out of order for convenience)
Attached is a slightly better version which is at least useful enough to
work with.
Thanks. What did you think of Raphaël's idea of the virtual
bootstrap-stage package?
Interesting. We did look at
I've not checked the details of the current proposed patch, as I think
the correct overall design should be agreed on first.
On Fri, 2012-05-11 at 17:38:41 +0100, Wookey wrote:
Jonathan Nieder jrnie...@gmail.com wrote:
Wookey wrote:
Attached is a slightly better version which is at least
Guillem Jover wrote:
http://www.hadrons.org/~guillem/debian/docs/embedded.proposal
Oh, neat.
Separate from questions of syntax and the list of supported values for
foo and bar in
Build-Depends[foo bar]:
are some more basic questions about what happens to packages from a
Jonathan Nieder wrote:
Are the resulting packages suitable for upload to the archive?
After rereading http://wiki.debian.org/DebianBootstrap, looks
like the intended answer is no.
[...]
So I might be able to use apt to install
ghc-unregisterised
After rereading
Sorry I've let this languish rather - too many things to do. But
Alkmim tried actually using it and as has been pointed out above there
are omissions.
I've been meaning to start a thread on debian-devel to check that
there was reasonable consensus around this approach inorder to answer
the
Wookey wrote:
(out of order for convenience)
Attached is a slightly better version which is at least useful enough to
work with.
Thanks. What did you think of Raphaël's idea of the virtual
bootstrap-stage package?
Won't there be need for a Build-Conflicts-Stage1, too?
[...]
I've been
Package: dpkg
Version: 1.16.1.2
Severity: wishlist
Tags: patch
Cyclic build-dependencies are a big problem in Debian, which make new
ports very difficult, or rebuilds for other reasons such as hardware
optimisations.
The subject is covered in some detail here:
Hi,
Wookey wrote:
Cyclic build-dependencies are a big problem in Debian, which make new
ports very difficult, or rebuilds for other reasons such as hardware
optimisations.
Thanks very much for working on this.
I'll let others talk about any thorny design issues. :) I just have
a couple of
On Mon, 27 Feb 2012, Wookey wrote:
The subject is covered in some detail here:
http://wiki.debian.org/DebianBootstrap
and was covered at Debconf in Baja Luka.
This little patch allows Build-Depends-Stage1 to be added to package
control files, for rules files to use DEB_BUILD_OPTIONS=STAGEN,
23 matches
Mail list logo
