On Tue, Jun 07, 2011 at 09:29:12AM +0200, Bill Allombert wrote:
On Mon, Jun 06, 2011 at 04:02:36PM -0700, Steve Langasek wrote:
Hi Bill,
(Sending this to 629...@bugs.debian.org, which is the cloned bug actually
assigned to the TC...)
Too much magic, but thanks anyway.
On Tue, Jun 07,
On Mon, Jun 06, 2011 at 01:04:59PM -0700, Russ Allbery wrote:
Andreas Barth a...@not.so.argh.org writes:
Option 1 also implies forcing debian/rules to be a Makefile, which is
think is sensible.
Policy already requires this. The only package in the archive for which
this is not already
Bill Allombert bill.allomb...@math.u-bordeaux1.fr writes:
I have proposed an alternative in the past (which did not get any
support, though): Decide that packages that have a Build-Depends-Indep:
field must implement build-arch/build-indep. This is probably already
the case.
This has the
On Mon, Jun 06, 2011 at 04:02:36PM -0700, Steve Langasek wrote:
Hi Bill,
(Sending this to 629...@bugs.debian.org, which is the cloned bug actually
assigned to the TC...)
On Tue, Jun 07, 2011 at 12:06:18AM +0200, Bill Allombert wrote:
The proposal 3) (which is implemented in dpkg as of
]] Steve Langasek
Hi,
| 4) Turn on direct use of 'debian/rules build-arch' on the autobuilders for
| all packages in unstable and experimental immediately, with no fallback
| if the target does not exist; requires a corresponding update to Policy
| and mass updates to fix packages
unmerge 604397
clone 604397 -1
reassign -1 tech-ctte
retitle -1 Please rule on how to implement debian/rules build-arch
merge 345619 604397
thanks
Fellow Committee members,
I am requesting your assistance in helping the project come to a conclusion
about how we can support the use of the
On Mon, Jun 06, 2011 at 02:15:37AM -0700, Steve Langasek wrote:
1) Implement support for calling 'debian/rules build-arch' in place of
'debian/rules build' by checking for the presence of the target using
'make -qn'.[1]
2) Implement support for calling 'debian/rules build-arch'
On Mon, Jun 06, 2011 at 12:09:34PM +0200, Bill Allombert wrote:
On Mon, Jun 06, 2011 at 02:15:37AM -0700, Steve Langasek wrote:
1) Implement support for calling 'debian/rules build-arch' in place of
'debian/rules build' by checking for the presence of the target using
'make
On Mon, Jun 06, 2011 at 03:59:15PM +0200, Bill Allombert wrote:
On Mon, Jun 06, 2011 at 12:09:34PM +0200, Bill Allombert wrote:
On Mon, Jun 06, 2011 at 02:15:37AM -0700, Steve Langasek wrote:
1) Implement support for calling 'debian/rules build-arch' in place of
'debian/rules build'
On Mon, Jun 06, 2011 at 03:37:07PM +0100, Roger Leigh wrote:
On Mon, Jun 06, 2011 at 03:59:15PM +0200, Bill Allombert wrote:
On Mon, Jun 06, 2011 at 12:09:34PM +0200, Bill Allombert wrote:
On Mon, Jun 06, 2011 at 02:15:37AM -0700, Steve Langasek wrote:
1) Implement support for calling
Hi,
On Mon, 06 Jun 2011, Roger Leigh wrote:
Has the following been considered:
- adding a command-line option for dpkg-buildpackage to explicitly
enable particular build-features (overriding the feature in the
source package).
This has not been suggested yet, I'm not opposed to the idea
On Mon, 2011-06-06 at 15:59:15 +0200, Bill Allombert wrote:
On Mon, Jun 06, 2011 at 12:09:34PM +0200, Bill Allombert wrote:
On Mon, Jun 06, 2011 at 02:15:37AM -0700, Steve Langasek wrote:
1) Implement support for calling 'debian/rules build-arch' in place of
'debian/rules build' by
Steve Langasek vor...@debian.org writes:
The Technical Committee has sufficient authority to address this
question under any of ยง6.1.{1,2,4,5}. If you prefer, we could also ask
for a referral from the policy editors or the dpkg maintainers, to
eliminate any question of supermajority
On Mon, 6 Jun 2011 02:15:37 -0700, Steve Langasek vor...@debian.org wrote:
If this were to be put to a vote today, I would propose the following ballot
options:
1) Implement support for calling 'debian/rules build-arch' in place of
'debian/rules build' by checking for the presence of
Andreas Barth a...@not.so.argh.org writes:
Option 1 also implies forcing debian/rules to be a Makefile, which is
think is sensible.
Policy already requires this. The only package in the archive for which
this is not already the case is leave.
I don't like option #3 because it's something
On Mon, Jun 06, 2011 at 09:56:22PM +0200, Andreas Barth wrote:
1) Implement support for calling 'debian/rules build-arch' in place of
'debian/rules build' by checking for the presence of the target using
'make -qn'.[1]
Option 1 also implies forcing debian/rules to be a
* Bdale Garbee (bd...@gag.com) [110606 20:59]:
On Mon, 6 Jun 2011 02:15:37 -0700, Steve Langasek vor...@debian.org wrote:
If this were to be put to a vote today, I would propose the following ballot
options:
1) Implement support for calling 'debian/rules build-arch' in place of
On Mon, 6 Jun 2011 21:56:22 +0200, Andreas Barth a...@not.so.argh.org wrote:
Why 3 below 5?
Introducing a new field that must be filled in and kept (manually) in
sync with information that is already present in the rules file just
doesn't seem like a good solution.
I'm less afraid of 4 than
On Mon, 6 Jun 2011 02:15:37 -0700, Steve Langasek vor...@debian.org wrote:
If this were to be put to a vote today, I would propose the following ballot
options:
1) Implement support for calling 'debian/rules build-arch' in place of
'debian/rules build' by checking for the presence of
Bill Allombert bill.allomb...@math.u-bordeaux1.fr writes:
The proposal 3) (which is implemented in dpkg as of today) was devised
following a discussion in Debian policy bug #218893 as a compromise
solution that was agreeable to everyone, then a patch to dpkg was
written (bug #229357). For
Hi Bill,
(Sending this to 629...@bugs.debian.org, which is the cloned bug actually
assigned to the TC...)
On Tue, Jun 07, 2011 at 12:06:18AM +0200, Bill Allombert wrote:
The proposal 3) (which is implemented in dpkg as of today) was devised
following a discussion in Debian policy bug #218893
21 matches
Mail list logo
