Sean Whitton:
> Hello,
>
> On Sun 11 Nov 2018 at 09:10PM +0100, Bill Allombert wrote:
>
>> Package support for TMPDIR can be introduced as a general requirement,
>> outside of the build process.
>
> Okay.
>
>> Maybe the proposal could be rewritten in a way that does not need to
>> cover the
Hello,
On Sun 11 Nov 2018 at 09:10PM +0100, Bill Allombert wrote:
> Package support for TMPDIR can be introduced as a general requirement,
> outside of the build process.
Okay.
> Maybe the proposal could be rewritten in a way that does not need to
> cover the detail of temporaries files.
>
>
Stuart Prescott writes ("Bug#845715: Required targets must not write outside of
the source package tree"):
> Bill Allombert wrote:
> > +This restriction is intended to prevent source package builds creating
> > +and depending on state outside of themselves
Bill Allombert wrote:
> +Required targets must not attempt to write outside of the unpacked
> +source package tree. There are two exceptions. Firstly, the binary
> +targets may write the binary packages to the parent directory of the
> +unpacked source package tree. Secondly, required targets
On Mon, Nov 12, 2018 at 09:32:51PM +0100, Bill Allombert wrote:
> > > I can be convinced otherwise with data, though.
> > :)
> If you still run
> https://tests.reproducible-builds.org
we do, however, this setup is for testing for reproducible builds and
not trying 'random stuff' which might
On Mon, Nov 12, 2018 at 12:09:20PM +, Holger Levsen wrote:
> On Sun, Nov 11, 2018 at 09:10:02PM +0100, Bill Allombert wrote:
> > More accurately: I am not sure the Debian archive is ready for these
> > bugs to be RC, especially since they are usually upstream bugs.
>
> agreed & thanks for
On Sun, Nov 11, 2018 at 09:10:02PM +0100, Bill Allombert wrote:
> More accurately: I am not sure the Debian archive is ready for these
> bugs to be RC, especially since they are usually upstream bugs.
agreed & thanks for catching this.
> I can be convinced otherwise with data, though.
:)
>
On Sun, Nov 11, 2018 at 11:25:58AM -0700, Sean Whitton wrote:
> Hello,
>
> === Addressing the participants in this thread more generally,
> especially those who seconded my most recent patch: ===
>
> Bill has raised several scenarios in which this new requirement could be
> interpreted as making
Hello,
=== Addressing the participants in this thread more generally,
especially those who seconded my most recent patch: ===
Bill has raised several scenarios in which this new requirement could be
interpreted as making a package RC-buggy, where that might be considered
unreasonable. Building
On Sun, Nov 11, 2018 at 07:42:15AM -0700, Sean Whitton wrote:
> Hello Bill,
>
> On Sun 11 Nov 2018 at 11:41AM +0100, Bill Allombert wrote:
>
> > I am not sure I see the difference. Do you imply something like
> >
> > but files created in that directory SHOULD be deleted before the
> >
Hello Bill,
On Sun 11 Nov 2018 at 11:41AM +0100, Bill Allombert wrote:
> I am not sure I see the difference. Do you imply something like
>
> but files created in that directory SHOULD be deleted before the
> targets completes and MUST not be reused by subsequent executions of
>
On Sat, Nov 10, 2018 at 08:38:07PM -0700, Sean Whitton wrote:
> diff --git a/policy/ch-source.rst b/policy/ch-source.rst
> index dc80243..3c6c9d5 100644
> --- a/policy/ch-source.rst
> +++ b/policy/ch-source.rst
> @@ -291,6 +291,20 @@ For packages in the main archive, no required targets
> may
On Sat, Nov 10, 2018 at 08:42:27PM -0700, Sean Whitton wrote:
> Hello,
>
> On Sat 03 Nov 2018 at 11:42PM +0100, Bill Allombert wrote:
>
> >> How about:
> >>
> >> As an exception, required targets may write to the directory specified
> >> by the ``TMPDIR`` environment variable (or
Sean Whitton:
> Hello,
>
> On Fri 09 Nov 2018 at 09:46PM GMT, Niels Thykier wrote:
>
>> I suspect we are missing an exception allowing the binary targets to
>> write the produced binaries in the parent directory of the unpacked
>> source tree.
>> Otherwise pretty much all packages violate the
Hello,
On Sat 03 Nov 2018 at 11:42PM +0100, Bill Allombert wrote:
>> How about:
>>
>> As an exception, required targets may write to the directory specified
>> by the ``TMPDIR`` environment variable (or ``/tmp`` if that is not
>> set), provided that files created in that directory
Hello,
On Fri 09 Nov 2018 at 09:46PM GMT, Niels Thykier wrote:
> I suspect we are missing an exception allowing the binary targets to
> write the produced binaries in the parent directory of the unpacked
> source tree.
> Otherwise pretty much all packages violate the policy when they
>
On Sat, 03 Nov 2018 12:38:55 -0700 Sean Whitton
wrote:
> control: tag -1 +patch
>
> Hello,
>
> I reformatted and wordsmithed josch's patch, second it myself, and am
> seeking further seconds.
>
> Given that whole archive rebuilds with use sbuild and already catch
> packages that violate this
Hi,
On Sat, Nov 03, 2018 at 12:38:55PM -0700, Sean Whitton wrote:
> Given that whole archive rebuilds with use sbuild and already catch
> packages that violate this requirement, making this change would not
> declare any packages buggy that would not already be considered buggy,
> so we can make
On Sat, Nov 03, 2018 at 01:07:49PM -0700, Russ Allbery wrote:
> Sean Whitton writes:
>
> > I reformatted and wordsmithed josch's patch, second it myself, and am
> > seeking further seconds.
>
> > Given that whole archive rebuilds with use sbuild and already catch
> > packages that violate this
control: tag -1 -patch +pending
Hello,
On Sat 03 Nov 2018 at 01:07PM -0700, Russ Allbery wrote:
> One minor wording nit, seconded either way:
>
>> +Required targets must not attempt to write outside of the unpacked
>> +source package tree. An exception to this rule is the use of
>> +``TMPDIR``
Sean Whitton writes:
> I reformatted and wordsmithed josch's patch, second it myself, and am
> seeking further seconds.
> Given that whole archive rebuilds with use sbuild and already catch
> packages that violate this requirement, making this change would not
> declare any packages buggy that
control: tag -1 +patch
Hello,
I reformatted and wordsmithed josch's patch, second it myself, and am
seeking further seconds.
Given that whole archive rebuilds with use sbuild and already catch
packages that violate this requirement, making this change would not
declare any packages buggy that
22 matches
Mail list logo
