Bug#700522: [buildd-tools-devel] Bug#700522: sbuild: Support for locally-built build dependencies

2014-01-02 Thread Roger Leigh
On Mon, Dec 30, 2013 at 09:16:48PM +0100, Emanuele Aina wrote:
 I've rebased Geoffrey's work on top of current master:
 
 https://github.com/em-/sbuild/commits/extra-package
 
 On my local system the patches have been working fine for some months
 now and they applied cleanly on the latest master, with the small
 exception of the one updating debian/changelog which only required some
 formatting adjustments.
 
 Again, hearing back from the maintainer would be very much appreciated.

Many thanks, I'll try to take a look tomorrow.

Happy New Year!

Roger

-- 
  .''`.  Roger Leigh
 : :' :  Debian GNU/Linux http://people.debian.org/~rleigh/
 `. `'   Printing on GNU/Linux?   http://gutenprint.sourceforge.net/
   `-GPG Public Key: 0x25BFB848   Please GPG sign your mail.


signature.asc
Description: Digital signature


Bug#700522: sbuild: Support for locally-built build dependencies

2013-12-30 Thread Emanuele Aina
I've rebased Geoffrey's work on top of current master:

https://github.com/em-/sbuild/commits/extra-package

On my local system the patches have been working fine for some months
now and they applied cleanly on the latest master, with the small
exception of the one updating debian/changelog which only required some
formatting adjustments.

Again, hearing back from the maintainer would be very much appreciated.

Thanks!


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-bugs-dist-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org



Bug#700522: sbuild: Support for locally-built build dependencies

2013-11-15 Thread Emanuele Aina
Geoffrey Thomas gtho...@mokafive.com wrote:

 OK, I think the extra-package branch of https://github.com/geofft/sbuild 
 is ready to be pulled.

Any news on this?

It's been some months that the patches have been proposed, improved and
reviewed but no feedback from the maintainer has been received.

With Alioth being down I can't check if the branch can be easily rebased
on top of current git master, but I'd really like to see this work
finally pushed the official repository.

FWIW Geoffrey's patches have been extensively reviewed on GitHub by me
and by APT developer David Kalnischkies (in the old add-package branch).

Even some quick feedback on IRC would be appreciated in case the
maintainer does not feel confident enough to blindly pull and rebase the
changes.

Thanks!


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-bugs-dist-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org



Bug#700522: sbuild: Support for locally-built build dependencies

2013-02-13 Thread Geoffrey Thomas

Package: sbuild
Version: 0.63.2-1
Severity: wishlist
Tags: patch

Hi maintainers,

When I'm backporting packages locally with the help of sbuild, it's often 
the case that I need to backport a build-dependency too. Let's say that 
package foo version 2.0 depends on libbar1 (= 2.0~). If I backport 
libbar1, I need to make it available to the build of foo.


One way to do this is to configure my local schroot to have e.g. ~/apt 
configured as a repository. This might work okay on a personal machine, 
provided I remember to be conscientious about cleaning out ~/apt between 
builds and pass --apt-update, but I'm running into a situation at work 
where I'm using the same build machine for two different products (one of 
which should not be built with a backported libbar1), and cleaning out a 
local apt repository would be painful and also enforce unnecessary 
serialization on builds.


One way to do this would be to have multiple schroots for building the two 
products, only one of which has the local apt repo. This seems like a 
waste of space.


Attached is a patch that provides the --add-package option to sbuild, 
which makes a .deb from the host system available to apt in the build 
chroot for use when resolving build dependencies. Concretely, this means I 
can do something like


sbuild -d stable libbar1_2.0-1.dsc
sbuild -d stable --add-package=libbar1_2.0-1_amd64.deb foo_2.0-1.dsc

with non-hacked-up schroots, and have things work the way I expect.

The implementation of this patch simply copies the .deb into the directory 
for the local archive (for build-dependency resolution). This makes it a 
very small patch, and works out fine because it specifically is needed for 
build-dependency resolution. I'm not positive this is the right approach, 
though, and would be willing to write a longer patch.


Another feature along related lines would be --add-repository, e.g.

sbuild -d stable --add-repository=file:/home/geofft/apt ./ foo_2.0-1.dsc
or
sbuild -d stable --add-repository=http://local-archive/apt stable myrepo 
foo_2.0-1.dsc

I have a naive implementation of this, which doesn't actually work because 
`apt-get update` is not run after the local archive is created (which the 
manpage mentions). One approach would be to instead implement this 
somewhere before --apt-update executes, and have this imply --apt-update. 
Another would be to add functionality to apt to update only a single repo, 
which the manpage mentions would be useful (and I think I'd like that 
functionality for its own sake, anyway). Do you have thoughts on which 
approach would be better?


Both patches are available on my github add-package branch, although 
this is more intended for feedback than merge:

https://github.com/geofft/sbuild/commits/add-package

Thanks,
--
Geoffrey Thomas
gtho...@mokafive.com


--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-bugs-dist-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org