Control: found -1 git-buildpackage/0.9.32
Control: block 1045476 by -1
Control: block 1046726 by -1
Control: block 1047140 by -1
Control: block 1047269 by -1
Control: block 1047406 by -1
Control: block 1047672 by -1
Control: block 1048821 by -1
Control: summary -1 0
Git-BuildPackage should assembl
Control: found -1 git-buildpackage/0.9.32
Control: block 1045476 by -1
Control: block 1046726 by -1
Control: block 1047140 by -1
Control: block 1047269 by -1
Control: block 1047406 by -1
Control: block 1047672 by -1
Control: block 1048821 by -1
Control: summary -1 0
Git-BuildPackage should assembl
Control: found -1 git-buildpackage/0.9.9
Control: affects -1 src:python-coverage
On 01-Dec-2017, Guido Günther wrote:
> […] since the upstream tarball is not in the build-area at this
> point "debuild -S" will complain. That's o.k. since the postexport
> hook is exactly for messing with the upstre
Hi,
On Fri, Dec 01, 2017 at 05:40:42PM +1100, Ben Finney wrote:
> On 19-Nov-2017, Guido Günther wrote:
> > So this looks like bzr-buildpackage is calling
> >
> >debuild -S
> >
> > after assembling the overlay. Wouldn't that be equivalent of calling
> >
> >gbp buildpackage --git-postexpor
Hi,
On Fri, Dec 01, 2017 at 02:22:15PM +1100, Ben Finney wrote:
> On 19-Nov-2017, Guido Günther wrote:
> > dug this one out again since I really would like to see this adressed
> > and I'm still unsure if we really need to do something:
>
> Thank you for returning to this. I also want this to be a
On 19-Nov-2017, Guido Günther wrote:
> So this looks like bzr-buildpackage is calling
>
>debuild -S
>
> after assembling the overlay. Wouldn't that be equivalent of calling
>
>gbp buildpackage --git-postexport="debuild -S" …
When I try, it still fails because it's trying to invoke the u
On 19-Nov-2017, Guido Günther wrote:
> dug this one out again since I really would like to see this adressed
> and I'm still unsure if we really need to do something:
Thank you for returning to this. I also want this to be addressed to
completion.
> So this looks like bzr-buildpackage is calling
Hi Ben,
dug this one out again since I really would like to see this adressed
and I'm still unsure if we really need to do something:
On Mon, Oct 19, 2015 at 06:27:34PM +1100, Ben Finney wrote:
> On 19-Oct-2015, Guido Günther wrote:
>
> > On Mon, Oct 19, 2015 at 12:51:08PM +1100, Ben Finney wrote
Hi Ben,
On Mon, Aug 14, 2017 at 11:36:24AM +1000, Ben Finney wrote:
> Control: submitter -1 !
> Control: found -1 git-buildpackage/0.8.18
>
> On 11-Aug-2017, Guido Günther wrote:
>
> > […] what you can do right now is call the clean command as prebuild
> > hook since it gets the build_dir passed
Control: submitter -1 !
On 14-Aug-2017, Ben Finney wrote:
> On 11-Aug-2017, Guido Günther wrote:
> > […] what you can do right now is call the clean command as
> > prebuild hook since it gets the build_dir passed in as
> > GBP_BUILD_DIR and is run right before the build.
>
> As best I can tell, t
Control: submitter -1 !
Control: found -1 git-buildpackage/0.8.18
On 11-Aug-2017, Guido Günther wrote:
> […] what you can do right now is call the clean command as prebuild
> hook since it gets the build_dir passed in as GBP_BUILD_DIR and is
> run right before the build.
Would calling the clean
Hi,
On Wed, Aug 09, 2017 at 09:38:50AM +1000, Ben Finney wrote:
> Ping. I'm still needing to understand your most recent message, can
> you help explain?
>
> On 02-Feb-2017, Guido Günther wrote:
>
> > If you now leave the check where it is for for all cases except
> > *options.overlay and not opt
Ping. I'm still needing to understand your most recent message, can
you help explain?
On 02-Feb-2017, Guido Günther wrote:
> If you now leave the check where it is for for all cases except
> *options.overlay and not options.tag_only) and have the check
> executed where you have it now for overlay
On 02-Feb-2017, Guido Günther wrote:
> Moving the cleaning/checking part out of main is exactly what I had
> in mind (and so I already pulled that change in).
Thank you, I'm glad that helped.
> If you now leave the check where it is for for all cases except
> *options.overlay and not options.tag
On Sun, Jan 29, 2017 at 01:30:38PM +1100, Ben Finney wrote:
> On 22-Jan-2017, Guido Günther wrote:
> > Hi Ben,
> > On Sun, Jan 22, 2017 at 03:48:47PM +1100, Ben Finney wrote:
> > > Please merge from my ‘issue/802284-overlay-before-rules’ branch
> > > https://notabug.org/bignose/debian_git-buildpack
On 22-Jan-2017, Guido Günther wrote:
> Hi Ben,
> On Sun, Jan 22, 2017 at 03:48:47PM +1100, Ben Finney wrote:
> > Please merge from my ‘issue/802284-overlay-before-rules’ branch
> > https://notabug.org/bignose/debian_git-buildpackage/src/issue/802284-overlay-before-rules>
> > if you approve of the i
Hi Ben,
On Sun, Jan 22, 2017 at 03:48:47PM +1100, Ben Finney wrote:
> On 17-Feb-2016, Ben Finney wrote:
> > On 20-Oct-2015, Guido Günther wrote:
> > > I'd be happy to apply a patch to achieve this behaviour. Given
> > > that I'm not a overlay user myself and currently stall on other
> > > things al
On 17-Feb-2016, Ben Finney wrote:
> On 20-Oct-2015, Guido Günther wrote:
> > I'd be happy to apply a patch to achieve this behaviour. Given
> > that I'm not a overlay user myself and currently stall on other
> > things already.
>
> I have implemented this behaviour and it seems to work correctly.
On 20-Oct-2015, Guido Günther wrote:
> Hi,
> On Mon, Oct 19, 2015 at 06:27:34PM +1100, Ben Finney wrote:
> > I would expect ‘git-buildpackage’ should as closely as feasible
> > mirror the overlay behaviour of the original ‘svn-buildpackage’,
> > and later ‘bzr-buildpackage’ and ‘hg-buildpackage’.
>
On Fri, Feb 12, 2016 at 07:11:36PM +1100, Ben Finney wrote:
> Control: found -1 git-buildpackage/0.7.2
>
> On 20-Oct-2015, Guido Günther wrote:
> > On Mon, Oct 19, 2015 at 06:27:34PM +1100, Ben Finney wrote:
> > > I would expect ‘git-buildpackage’ should as closely as feasible
> > > mirror the ove
Control: found -1 git-buildpackage/0.7.2
On 20-Oct-2015, Guido Günther wrote:
> On Mon, Oct 19, 2015 at 06:27:34PM +1100, Ben Finney wrote:
> > I would expect ‘git-buildpackage’ should as closely as feasible
> > mirror the overlay behaviour of the original ‘svn-buildpackage’,
> > and later ‘bzr-bu
Hi,
On Mon, Oct 19, 2015 at 06:27:34PM +1100, Ben Finney wrote:
> On 19-Oct-2015, Guido Günther wrote:
>
> > On Mon, Oct 19, 2015 at 12:51:08PM +1100, Ben Finney wrote:
> > > The ‘gbp buildpackage’ command, for a package in “overlay” mode,
> > > should not assume any of the ‘debian/rules’ commands
On 19-Oct-2015, Guido Günther wrote:
> On Mon, Oct 19, 2015 at 12:51:08PM +1100, Ben Finney wrote:
> > The ‘gbp buildpackage’ command, for a package in “overlay” mode,
> > should not assume any of the ‘debian/rules’ commands will work in
> > the absence of the upstream source. That includes ‘clean
Hi,
On Mon, Oct 19, 2015 at 12:51:08PM +1100, Ben Finney wrote:
> Package: git-buildpackage
> Version: 0.6.32
> Severity: normal
>
> When building a package in “overlay” mode, the upstream source is by
> definition not in the VCS working tree until the overlay is assembled.
>
> So commands such a
Package: git-buildpackage
Version: 0.6.32
Severity: normal
When building a package in “overlay” mode, the upstream source is by
definition not in the VCS working tree until the overlay is assembled.
So commands such as ‘debian/rules clean’ will not work, if issued
before the overlay is assembled:
25 matches
Mail list logo
