Bug#628515: Seeking seconds for patch to recommend verbose logs and define DEB_BUILD_OPTIONS=terse

2018-07-23 Thread Andrey Rahmatullin
On Mon, Jul 23, 2018 at 07:48:48AM +0800, Sean Whitton wrote: > > diff --git a/policy/ch-source.rst b/policy/ch-source.rst > > index 9e7d79c..c35e994 100644 > > --- a/policy/ch-source.rst > > +++ b/policy/ch-source.rst > > @@ -277,6 +277,13 @@ reproduce the same binary package, all required > >

Bug#628515: Seeking seconds for patch to recommend verbose logs and define DEB_BUILD_OPTIONS=terse

2018-07-22 Thread David Bremner
Ian Jackson writes: > Sean Whitton writes ("Bug#628515: Seeking seconds for patch to recommend > verbose logs and define DEB_BUILD_OPTIONS=terse"): >> I think that the use of 'maximally' is fine given that the previous >> sentence is now qualified with 'reasonably'. > > Yes. > >> Here is the

Bug#628515: Seeking seconds for patch to recommend verbose logs and define DEB_BUILD_OPTIONS=terse

2018-07-22 Thread Ian Jackson
Sean Whitton writes ("Bug#628515: Seeking seconds for patch to recommend verbose logs and define DEB_BUILD_OPTIONS=terse"): > I think that the use of 'maximally' is fine given that the previous > sentence is now qualified with 'reasonably'. Yes. > Here is the revised patch; David and Andrey,

Bug#628515: Seeking seconds for patch to recommend verbose logs and define DEB_BUILD_OPTIONS=terse

2018-07-22 Thread Sean Whitton
Hello, On Sun 22 Jul 2018 at 10:58PM +0100, Ian Jackson wrote: > Are you sure "as verbose as {+reasonably+} possible" would not be > better ? > > Imagine a build that, oh, I don't know, was able to spit megabytes of > base-64-encoded binaries to its stderr, or something. Obviously > enablig

Bug#628515: Seeking seconds for patch to recommend verbose logs and define DEB_BUILD_OPTIONS=terse

2018-07-22 Thread Ian Jackson
Sean Whitton writes ("Bug#628515: Seeking seconds for patch to recommend verbose logs and define DEB_BUILD_OPTIONS=terse"): > > +The package build should be as verbose as possible, except where the Are you sure "as verbose as {+reasonably+} possible" would not be better ? Imagine a build that,

Bug#628515: Seeking seconds for patch to recommend verbose logs and define DEB_BUILD_OPTIONS=terse

2018-07-22 Thread David Bremner
Sean Whitton writes: > > I am therefore seeking seconds for the following patch. In seconding > this, please remember that to second something is not simply to say that > you agree with the change, but also to indicate agreement with my > judgement that the change reflects project consensus.

Bug#628515: Seeking seconds for patch to recommend verbose logs and define DEB_BUILD_OPTIONS=terse

2018-07-22 Thread Andrey Rahmatullin
On Sun, Jul 22, 2018 at 06:10:42PM +0800, Sean Whitton wrote: > > diff --git a/policy/ch-source.rst b/policy/ch-source.rst > > index 9e7d79c..83721f5 100644 > > --- a/policy/ch-source.rst > > +++ b/policy/ch-source.rst > > @@ -277,6 +277,13 @@ reproduce the same binary package, all required > >

Bug#628515: Seeking seconds for patch to recommend verbose logs and define DEB_BUILD_OPTIONS=terse

2018-07-22 Thread Sean Whitton
control: tag -1 +patch Hello, I've reviewed the discussion in #628515 and #680686, and it looks to me that we have a consensus that package builds should be verbose by default. There are dissenting opinions, but debhelper has implemented verbosity by default, and the other options require