Bug#836940: [buildd-tools-devel] Bug#836940: cowbuilder, sbuild: should behave identically in regard to default gnupg installation

On Thu, Sep 8, 2016 at 13:35:51 +0200, Lucas Nussbaum wrote: > 1) packages failing to build when gnupg is not installed in the chroot. > gnupg is priority: important, and is not installed by debootstrap > --variant=buildd. > > 2) packages failing to build when tzdata is not installed in the

Bug#836940: [buildd-tools-devel] Bug#836940: cowbuilder, sbuild: should behave identically in regard to default gnupg installation

On 08/09/16 at 11:31 +0200, Santiago Vila wrote: > On Thu, 8 Sep 2016, Johannes Schauer wrote: > > > as we are talking about testing packages in the most minimal environment > > possible it must be noted that debootstrap --variant=minbase or > > --variant=buildd does not only install

Bug#836940: [buildd-tools-devel] Bug#836940: cowbuilder, sbuild: should behave identically in regard to default gnupg installation

On Thu, 8 Sep 2016, Johannes Schauer wrote: > as we are talking about testing packages in the most minimal environment > possible it must be noted that debootstrap --variant=minbase or > --variant=buildd does not only install Essential:yes or Essential:yes with > build-essential, respectively,

Bug#836940: [buildd-tools-devel] Bug#836940: cowbuilder, sbuild: should behave identically in regard to default gnupg installation

Hi, Quoting Thorsten Glaser (2016-09-07 22:53:37) > Markus Koschany dixit: > > >I have just created a new cowbuilder base chroot with > > > >sudo DIST=sid ARCH=amd64 cowbuilder --create > > > >and this command still installs gnupg. I don't know what I'm currently > >missing > >

Bug#836940: [buildd-tools-devel] Bug#836940: cowbuilder, sbuild: should behave identically in regard to default gnupg installation

> On 7 Sep 2016, at 23:01, Markus Koschany wrote: > > On 07.09.2016 23:24, Mattia Rizzolo wrote: >> Pbuilder (and therefore cowbuilder) already use --variant=buildd >> >> That afaik is --variant=minbase + build-essential. >> >> I'm not sure why you still get gnupg installed.

Bug#836940: [buildd-tools-devel] Bug#836940: cowbuilder, sbuild: should behave identically in regard to default gnupg installation

Santiago Vila dixit: >For the record: This is a false dichotomy, because xmlgraphics-commons >didn't fail in the official buildds. it didn't fail in a You miss a word there: “yet” An undeclared build dependency on a non-Essential/Build-Essential package is an RC bug in the package. That

Bug#836940: [buildd-tools-devel] Bug#836940: cowbuilder, sbuild: should behave identically in regard to default gnupg installation

On Wed, 7 Sep 2016, Markus Koschany wrote: > Now we all agree that a package that fails to build > on the official buildd network is RC buggy. But what about packages that > neither fail there nor locally in a clean cowbuilder environment but > under some obscure circumstances in a local sbuild

Bug#836940: [buildd-tools-devel] Bug#836940: cowbuilder, sbuild: should behave identically in regard to default gnupg installation

On 07.09.2016 23:24, Mattia Rizzolo wrote: > Pbuilder (and therefore cowbuilder) already use --variant=buildd > > That afaik is --variant=minbase + build-essential. > > I'm not sure why you still get gnupg installed. > > Btw what version are you using (of cowbuilder and pbuilder)? I'm using

Bug#836940: [buildd-tools-devel] Bug#836940: cowbuilder, sbuild: should behave identically in regard to default gnupg installation

Mattia Rizzolo dixit: >I'm not sure why you still get gnupg installed. > >Btw what version are you using (of cowbuilder and pbuilder)? I just installed (on an up-to-date sid/x32 system with latest cowbuilder/pbuilder) a fresh sid chroot (from a local mirror that’s updated daily) and get no

Bug#836940: [buildd-tools-devel] Bug#836940: cowbuilder, sbuild: should behave identically in regard to default gnupg installation

Pbuilder (and therefore cowbuilder) already use --variant=buildd That afaik is --variant=minbase + build-essential. I'm not sure why you still get gnupg installed. Btw what version are you using (of cowbuilder and pbuilder)? On Wed, 7 Sep 2016, 11:19 p.m. Thorsten Glaser,

Bug#836940: [buildd-tools-devel] Bug#836940: cowbuilder, sbuild: should behave identically in regard to default gnupg installation

On Wed, 7 Sep 2016, Markus Koschany wrote: > But what about packages that > neither fail there nor locally in a clean cowbuilder environment but > under some obscure circumstances in a local sbuild environment? Excuse me? A chroot without gnupg is now called "obscure circumstances in a local

Bug#836940: [buildd-tools-devel] Bug#836940: cowbuilder, sbuild: should behave identically in regard to default gnupg installation

Markus Koschany dixit: >Thanks. Could we make these variants the default in cowbuilder? Unsure, people *can* use cowbuilder to create normal chroots for use, just like schroot. One thing we can do is to document this better in the cowbuilder manpage (currently only in pbuilder’s at all, and

Bug#836940: [buildd-tools-devel] Bug#836940: cowbuilder, sbuild: should behave identically in regard to default gnupg installation

On 07.09.2016 22:53, Thorsten Glaser wrote: > Markus Koschany dixit: > >> I have just created a new cowbuilder base chroot with >> >> sudo DIST=sid ARCH=amd64 cowbuilder --create >> >> and this command still installs gnupg. I don't know what I'm currently >> missing > > --variant=minbase or

Bug#836940: [buildd-tools-devel] Bug#836940: cowbuilder, sbuild: should behave identically in regard to default gnupg installation

Markus Koschany dixit: >I have just created a new cowbuilder base chroot with > >sudo DIST=sid ARCH=amd64 cowbuilder --create > >and this command still installs gnupg. I don't know what I'm currently >missing --variant=minbase or --variant=buildd (minbase+build-essential) TYS, //mirabilos --

Bug#836940: [buildd-tools-devel] Bug#836940: cowbuilder, sbuild: should behave identically in regard to default gnupg installation

On 07.09.2016 16:40, gregor herrmann wrote: > On Wed, 07 Sep 2016 16:05:24 +0200, Johannes Schauer wrote: > >>> The package xmlgraphics-commons started recently failing to build from >>> source in a clean sbuild environment although it was built successfully >>> on the buildd network a few months

Bug#836940: [buildd-tools-devel] Bug#836940: cowbuilder, sbuild: should behave identically in regard to default gnupg installation

On Wed, Sep 07, 2016 at 06:33:06PM +, Thorsten Glaser wrote: > Johannes Schauer dixit: > > >APT::AutoRemove::RecommendsImportant "false"; > > > >This is what sbuild does and how it will remove gnupg on chroot upgrades. > > That’s useful for cowbuilder, indeed! pbuilder (and therefor

Bug#836940: [buildd-tools-devel] Bug#836940: cowbuilder, sbuild: should behave identically in regard to default gnupg installation

Hi, Quoting Santiago Vila (2016-09-07 20:33:54) > Moreover, Markus suggested that I work towards "defining a common > build environment standard". Not sure what he meant by that. Do we > need such standard or we can still use the already existing set of > build essential packages? > > I would

Bug#836940: [buildd-tools-devel] Bug#836940: cowbuilder, sbuild: should behave identically in regard to default gnupg installation

Johannes Schauer dixit: >APT::AutoRemove::RecommendsImportant "false"; > >This is what sbuild does and how it will remove gnupg on chroot upgrades. That’s useful for cowbuilder, indeed! Thanks, //mirabilos -- Stéphane, I actually don’t block Googlemail, they’re just too utterly stupid to

Bug#836940: [buildd-tools-devel] Bug#836940: cowbuilder, sbuild: should behave identically in regard to default gnupg installation

Mattia Rizzolo dixit: >Given this, and other instance (like the presence of all ggc-X(.Y)-base >binaries that are installed because of their priority), I recommend to >recreate the building chroots from time to time, to take account changes >in that set. Agreed, except I do manual cleanup

Bug#836940: [buildd-tools-devel] Bug#836940: cowbuilder, sbuild: should behave identically in regard to default gnupg installation

Hi, Quoting Mattia Rizzolo (2016-09-07 19:54:10) > On Wed, Sep 07, 2016 at 04:40:52PM +0200, gregor herrmann wrote: > > On Wed, 07 Sep 2016 16:05:24 +0200, Johannes Schauer wrote: > > > > > > The package xmlgraphics-commons started recently failing to build from > > > > source in a clean sbuild

Bug#836940: [buildd-tools-devel] Bug#836940: cowbuilder, sbuild: should behave identically in regard to default gnupg installation

Hi Mattia, Quoting Mattia Rizzolo (2016-09-07 19:50:14) > On Wed, Sep 07, 2016 at 02:36:50PM +, Thorsten Glaser wrote: > > >In fact, to further minimize the number of packages installed into the > > >build > > >chroot, I have plans to even get rid of apt and its dependencies during the > >

Bug#836940: [buildd-tools-devel] Bug#836940: cowbuilder, sbuild: should behave identically in regard to default gnupg installation

On Wed, Sep 07, 2016 at 04:40:52PM +0200, gregor herrmann wrote: > On Wed, 07 Sep 2016 16:05:24 +0200, Johannes Schauer wrote: > > > > The package xmlgraphics-commons started recently failing to build from > > > source in a clean sbuild environment although it was built successfully > > > on the

Bug#836940: [buildd-tools-devel] Bug#836940: cowbuilder, sbuild: should behave identically in regard to default gnupg installation

On Wed, Sep 07, 2016 at 02:36:50PM +, Thorsten Glaser wrote: > >In fact, to further minimize the number of packages installed into the build > >chroot, I have plans to even get rid of apt and its dependencies during the > >build and only leave build-essential, Essential:yes packages, the build

Bug#836940: [buildd-tools-devel] Bug#836940: cowbuilder, sbuild: should behave identically in regard to default gnupg installation

Hi, Quoting Thorsten Glaser (2016-09-07 18:49:28) > Johannes Schauer dixit: > > > --auto-remove --allow-remove-essential apt; > > Do note you may not* remove any package that is Essential: yes, > or the package build-essential and its dependencies. the --allow-remove-essential flag is

Bug#836940: [buildd-tools-devel] Bug#836940: cowbuilder, sbuild: should behave identically in regard to default gnupg installation

Johannes Schauer dixit: > --auto-remove --allow-remove-essential apt; Do note you may not* remove any package that is Essential: yes, or the package build-essential and its dependencies. *) Removing gcc-X.Y-base (and its dependencies) when newer ones exist and they are otherwise unused is

Bug#836940: [buildd-tools-devel] Bug#836940: cowbuilder, sbuild: should behave identically in regard to default gnupg installation

Hi, Quoting Thorsten Glaser (2016-09-07 16:36:50) > >In fact, to further minimize the number of packages installed into the build > >chroot, I have plans to even get rid of apt and its dependencies during the > >build and only leave build-essential, Essential:yes packages, the build >

Bug#836940: [buildd-tools-devel] Bug#836940: cowbuilder, sbuild: should behave identically in regard to default gnupg installation

Johannes Schauer dixit: >> I think it is important that all maintainers can rely on the same default >> chroot environment to test their packages before uploading to avoid possible >> build failures. The default chroot environment is one created with debootstrap --variant=minbase, and then kept

Bug#836940: [buildd-tools-devel] Bug#836940: cowbuilder, sbuild: should behave identically in regard to default gnupg installation

On Wed, 07 Sep 2016 16:05:24 +0200, Johannes Schauer wrote: > > The package xmlgraphics-commons started recently failing to build from > > source in a clean sbuild environment although it was built successfully > > on the buildd network a few months ago. This behavior cannot be observed > > in a

Bug#836940: [buildd-tools-devel] Bug#836940: cowbuilder, sbuild: should behave identically in regard to default gnupg installation

Hi Markus! Quoting Markus Koschany (2016-09-07 13:28:41) > I am assigning this bug report to both of you in order to determine the > best course of action. Please feel free to reassign and change the > severity as appropriate. > > The package xmlgraphics-commons started recently failing to build