On Tue, Feb 02, 2010 at 07:59:53AM +0100, Lucas Nussbaum wrote:
On 02/02/10 at 01:07 +0100, Wouter Verhelst wrote:
At any rate, here are some facts:
- A package that builds differently because something is (or is not)
installed on the build system is buggy. Period. It has nothing to do
On Wed, Jan 20, 2010 at 10:37:48PM +1300, Lucas Nussbaum wrote:
On 20/01/10 at 00:48 -0800, Steve Langasek wrote:
On Wed, Jan 20, 2010 at 02:22:33PM +1300, Lucas Nussbaum wrote:
Why spend a lot of time on tasks that provide little benefit, and also
some disadvantages (in some cases,
On 02/02/10 at 01:07 +0100, Wouter Verhelst wrote:
At any rate, here are some facts:
- A package that builds differently because something is (or is not)
installed on the build system is buggy. Period. It has nothing to do
with the build system, it's the package.
... but I question that
On Tue, Jan 19, 2010 at 03:40:22PM -0800, Russ Allbery wrote:
Because we want our users to be able to patch and rebuild our software to
suit their needs. Asking them to set up a chroot build environment is
asking quite a lot.
AOL. Yesterday night I drafted a reply (which has lingered in my
On Wed, Jan 20, 2010 at 02:22:33PM +1300, Lucas Nussbaum wrote:
Why spend a lot of time on tasks that provide little benefit, and also
some disadvantages (in some cases, the fixes might be non-obvious, and
requires changes to the packaging that tend to obscure it, for example
by using
Package: netatalk
Version: 2.0.5-2
Severity: important
Holger Levsen:
how about the compromise and doing both, except that for (1) we file the bugs
with severity important?
Hi Jonas,
as recently pointed out on debian-devel [1], the netatalk package is
accidently linked against libssl on
On Wed, Jan 20, 2010 at 09:55:35AM +0100, Fabian Greffrath wrote:
as recently pointed out on debian-devel [1], the netatalk package is
accidently linked against libssl on some arches due to dirty buildd
chroots. To avoid this license violation, explicit Build-Conflicts
against libssl-dev
On Tue, Jan 19, 2010 at 02:36:08PM -0800, Russ Allbery wrote:
Neil McGovern ne...@debian.org writes:
On Tue, Jan 19, 2010 at 11:59:35AM -0800, Russ Allbery wrote:
This is a bug in the netatalk Debian packaging. You cannot assume the
package will be built in a clean chroot; among other
On Tue, Jan 19, 2010 at 11:32:17PM +0100, Martin Zobel-Helas wrote:
Would it be time to start looking at LVM snapshops + sbuild perhaps?
we already have two or three buildds doing that... The buildd team (esp.
HE) working on that and if it works out to be stable enough, we can see
if we can
On Wed, Jan 20, 2010 at 10:25:01AM +0100, Jonas Smedegaard wrote:
On Wed, Jan 20, 2010 at 09:55:35AM +0100, Fabian Greffrath wrote:
as recently pointed out on debian-devel [1], the netatalk package
is accidently linked against libssl on some arches due to dirty
buildd chroots. To avoid this
On Tue, Jan 19, 2010 at 04:04:07PM -0800, Russ Allbery wrote:
hu? since when do we have a broader interest in people patching and
rebuilding packages? I know that there are *some* people interested in
that (me included) but I don't see that a broader audience wants to
support that.
Uh,
On 20/01/10 at 00:48 -0800, Steve Langasek wrote:
On Wed, Jan 20, 2010 at 02:22:33PM +1300, Lucas Nussbaum wrote:
Why spend a lot of time on tasks that provide little benefit, and also
some disadvantages (in some cases, the fixes might be non-obvious, and
requires changes to the packaging
On 20/01/10 at 09:30 +0100, Stefano Zacchiroli wrote:
On Tue, Jan 19, 2010 at 03:40:22PM -0800, Russ Allbery wrote:
Because we want our users to be able to patch and rebuild our software to
suit their needs. Asking them to set up a chroot build environment is
asking quite a lot.
AOL.
On Wed, Jan 20, 2010 at 10:13:46PM +1300, Lucas Nussbaum wrote:
What's the problem with documentation such as
https://wiki.ubuntu.com/PbuilderHowto (except it's an Ubuntu
documentation)? I think that the process of building with pbuilder is
reasonably well documented.
Let's be realistic. We
On Wed, Jan 20, 2010 at 01:28:49AM -0800, Steve Langasek wrote:
On Wed, Jan 20, 2010 at 10:25:01AM +0100, Jonas Smedegaard wrote:
On Wed, Jan 20, 2010 at 09:55:35AM +0100, Fabian Greffrath wrote:
as recently pointed out on debian-devel [1], the netatalk package
is accidently linked against
Thank you for the additional information you have supplied regarding
this Bug report.
This is an automatically generated reply to let you know your message
has been received.
Your message is being forwarded to the package maintainers and other
interested parties for their attention; they will
On Wed, Jan 20, 2010 at 10:37:48PM +1300, Lucas Nussbaum wrote:
I'm not asking anyone to spend time on this task, but I still consider
missing build-conflicts a bug. Ignoring these bugs by insisting on clean
chroot environments for all official package builds is no solution - what if
one
tags 565969 pending
thanks
On Wed, Jan 20, 2010 at 11:15:23AM +0100, Jonas Smedegaard wrote:
On Wed, Jan 20, 2010 at 01:28:49AM -0800, Steve Langasek wrote:
On Wed, Jan 20, 2010 at 10:25:01AM +0100, Jonas Smedegaard wrote:
On Wed, Jan 20, 2010 at 09:55:35AM +0100, Fabian Greffrath wrote:
as
* Lucas Nussbaum lu...@lucas-nussbaum.net [100120 01:26]:
There are two ways to attack that problem:
(1) We decide that we want to provide the guarantee that packages
build the correct way in unclean envs. That mean making such bugs RC,
basically, and making efforts to find such bugs.
If you
Ahh, problem isolated: The proper option to use is
--with-openssl-dir=no - so the convenient DEB_BUILD_OPTIONS=openssl
will be preserved :-)
Sure?!
# ./configure --with-openssl-dir=no|grep -i ssl
checking for SSL... /usr (enabling RANDNUM and DHX support)
SSL:
CFLAGS =
On Wed, Jan 20, 2010 at 04:15:26PM +0100, Fabian Greffrath wrote:
Ahh, problem isolated: The proper option to use is
--with-openssl-dir=no - so the convenient DEB_BUILD_OPTIONS=openssl
will be preserved :-)
Sure?!
Nope. I went offline (train ride to Copenhagen an hour from my home)
where I
Patrick Schoenfeld schoenf...@debian.org writes:
On Tue, Jan 19, 2010 at 04:04:07PM -0800, Russ Allbery wrote:
Uh, since as long as I've been part of the project. I think this is at
least the third time that I recall the same topic coming up on -devel.
Wow. How often a topic comes up on
On Wed, Jan 20, 2010 at 10:30:13AM -0800, Russ Allbery wrote:
That does not mean that we shouldn't fix such bugs if they arise
(obviously we should) but having priority on it is a different thing.
Then I'm not sure that you're disagreeing with me?
Oh I don't. However in one of your first
Patrick Schoenfeld schoenf...@debian.org writes:
On Wed, Jan 20, 2010 at 10:30:13AM -0800, Russ Allbery wrote:
That does not mean that we shouldn't fix such bugs if they arise
(obviously we should) but having priority on it is a different thing.
Then I'm not sure that you're disagreeing with
On Tue, Jan 19, 2010 at 03:40:22PM -0800, Russ Allbery wrote:
Lucas Nussbaum lu...@lucas-nussbaum.net writes:
On 19/01/10 at 14:36 -0800, Russ Allbery wrote:
Well, I would argue that proper package builds in dirty environments is
something we want in Debian anyway, and while this isn't
Hi,
it seems that some buildds occasionally have libssl-dev installed in
their chroot. A friend of mine has found out that the netatalk package
depends on libssl0.9.8 [sparc] in sid and [hppa, mipsel] in squeeze.
Other architectures are not affected. For GPL-licensed software like
netatalk this
Fabian Greffrath fab...@greffrath.com writes:
it seems that some buildds occasionally have libssl-dev installed in
their chroot. A friend of mine has found out that the netatalk package
depends on libssl0.9.8 [sparc] in sid and [hppa, mipsel] in squeeze.
Other architectures are not affected.
On Tue, Jan 19, 2010 at 11:59:35AM -0800, Russ Allbery wrote:
This is a bug in the netatalk Debian packaging. You cannot assume the
package will be built in a clean chroot; among other things, the buildd
software explicitly does not guarantee that all packages will be removed.
Would it be
Hi Neil,
On Tue Jan 19, 2010 at 22:29:25 +, Neil McGovern wrote:
On Tue, Jan 19, 2010 at 11:59:35AM -0800, Russ Allbery wrote:
This is a bug in the netatalk Debian packaging. You cannot assume the
package will be built in a clean chroot; among other things, the buildd
software
Neil McGovern ne...@debian.org writes:
On Tue, Jan 19, 2010 at 11:59:35AM -0800, Russ Allbery wrote:
This is a bug in the netatalk Debian packaging. You cannot assume the
package will be built in a clean chroot; among other things, the buildd
software explicitly does not guarantee that all
On 19/01/10 at 14:36 -0800, Russ Allbery wrote:
Neil McGovern ne...@debian.org writes:
On Tue, Jan 19, 2010 at 11:59:35AM -0800, Russ Allbery wrote:
This is a bug in the netatalk Debian packaging. You cannot assume the
package will be built in a clean chroot; among other things, the
Hi,
On Dienstag, 19. Januar 2010, Martin Zobel-Helas wrote:
we already have two or three buildds doing that... The buildd team (esp.
HE) working on that and if it works out to be stable enough, we can see
if we can roll out it to all buildds.
very cool. thank you!
cheers,
Holger
Lucas Nussbaum lu...@lucas-nussbaum.net writes:
On 19/01/10 at 14:36 -0800, Russ Allbery wrote:
Well, I would argue that proper package builds in dirty environments is
something we want in Debian anyway, and while this isn't the ideal
method to find it, it would be a bug regardless of how the
Hi,
On Tue, Jan 19, 2010 at 03:40:22PM -0800, Russ Allbery wrote:
Why would we want that?
I mean, it's very difficult to guarantee that packages build correctly
in dirty envs. I don't really see the point of enforcing that when we
have the technology (pbuilder, sbuild + lvm snapshots)
On Wed, Jan 20, 2010 at 00:48:15 +0100, Patrick Schoenfeld wrote:
hu? since when do we have a broader interest in people patching
and rebuilding packages? I know that there are *some* people interested
in that (me included) but I don't see that a broader
audience wants to support that.
Just
Patrick Schoenfeld schoenf...@debian.org writes:
On Tue, Jan 19, 2010 at 03:40:22PM -0800, Russ Allbery wrote:
Because we want our users to be able to patch and rebuild our software
to suit their needs. Asking them to set up a chroot build environment
is asking quite a lot.
hu? since when
On 19/01/10 at 16:04 -0800, Russ Allbery wrote:
People do occasionally test whether packages rebuild properly in dirty
environments and file bugs when they don't. Being absolutely certain it
will always work is, of course, hard, but I think fixing the bug when we
detect it is the right
Lucas Nussbaum lu...@lucas-nussbaum.net writes:
On 19/01/10 at 16:04 -0800, Russ Allbery wrote:
People do occasionally test whether packages rebuild properly in
dirty environments and file bugs when they don't. Being absolutely
certain it will always work is, of course, hard, but I think
Hi,
On Mittwoch, 20. Januar 2010, Lucas Nussbaum wrote:
There are two ways to attack that problem:
how about the compromise and doing both, except that for (1) we file the bugs
with severity important?
cheers,
Holger
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message
On 20/01/10 at 01:49 +0100, Holger Levsen wrote:
On Mittwoch, 20. Januar 2010, Lucas Nussbaum wrote:
There are two ways to attack that problem:
how about the compromise and doing both, except that for (1) we file the bugs
with severity important?
There are a lot of more useful QA tasks
40 matches
Mail list logo
