On Thu, Feb 07, 2013 at 11:11:22PM -0400, Joey Hess wrote:
Ben Hutchings wrote:
What I mean is that a changes file for a sourceful upload has
'source' (and maybe some real architecture names) in the Architecture
field. Therefore 'source' cannot be assigned as the name of a real
Thorsten Glaser t...@debian.org (17/02/2013):
So please brainstorm on a fix. In the meantime, dear fellow
buildd admins, please do run apt-get dist-upgrade (following
an apt-get update if you don’t persist those) in *all* of your
buildd chroots frequently and handle those REJECTs caused by
Cyril Brulebois dixit:
In the meantime, dear Thorsten Glaser, please do figure out that
mailing debian-devel@ is *not* the way to reach buildd admins.
I know, and it wasn’t the goal of that mail. I already contacted
those in question once.
bye,
//mirabilos
--
„nein: BerliOS und Sourceforge
On Mon, Feb 11, 2013 at 12:41:26AM +0100, Matthias Klose wrote:
Am 10.02.2013 23:31, schrieb Philipp Kern:
On Sun, Feb 10, 2013 at 03:01:21PM +0100, Matthias Klose wrote:
But it is ok to insist on using the exact binary version for
build-depending on source packages when it's not needed?
Am 17.02.2013 20:41, schrieb Philipp Kern:
On Mon, Feb 11, 2013 at 12:41:26AM +0100, Matthias Klose wrote:
Am 10.02.2013 23:31, schrieb Philipp Kern:
On Sun, Feb 10, 2013 at 03:01:21PM +0100, Matthias Klose wrote:
But it is ok to insist on using the exact binary version for
build-depending
Matthias Klose doko at debian.org writes:
maybe it's a coincidence, however creduce was formerly rejected for not having
a Built-Using attribute, and gcj-4.8, gnat-4.7 and gnat-4.8 are still in NEW.
There’s another REJECT issue in the other direction:
Some buildds do not keep their chroots up
On Sat, Feb 09, 2013 at 03:42:38AM +0100, Andreas Beckmann wrote:
Can't we just annotate the foo-source binary package in some way - it
should be pretty clear to the maintainer that he produces such a
special package. Then for building other packages B-D-ing on the
special package we could
Am 09.02.2013 19:01, schrieb Philipp Kern:
On Sat, Feb 09, 2013 at 11:16:30PM +0800, Chow Loong Jin wrote:
On 09/02/2013 08:38, Russ Allbery wrote:
The proposal made in the Policy bug, which seems quite reasonable to
me, is that we should only annotate packages with Built-Using if there
are
Matthias Klose d...@debian.org writes:
But it is ok to insist on using the exact binary version for
build-depending on source packages when it's not needed? This only seems
to be driven by the current dak implementation.
That does matter if the included source is GPL, and I suspect part of
On Sun, Feb 10, 2013 at 03:01:21PM +0100, Matthias Klose wrote:
But it is ok to insist on using the exact binary version for build-depending
on source packages when it's not needed? This only seems to be driven by the
current dak implementation.
That doesn't make sense to me. Where did
Am 10.02.2013 23:31, schrieb Philipp Kern:
On Sun, Feb 10, 2013 at 03:01:21PM +0100, Matthias Klose wrote:
But it is ok to insist on using the exact binary version for
build-depending on source packages when it's not needed? This only seems
to be driven by the current dak implementation.
On 09/02/2013 08:38, Russ Allbery wrote:
The proposal made in the Policy bug, which seems quite reasonable to me,
is that we should only annotate packages with Built-Using if there are
license implications to the inclusion of the source. Documenting things
like libgcc.a that have explicit,
On Sat, Feb 09, 2013 at 11:16:30PM +0800, Chow Loong Jin wrote:
On 09/02/2013 08:38, Russ Allbery wrote:
The proposal made in the Policy bug, which seems quite reasonable to me,
is that we should only annotate packages with Built-Using if there are
license implications to the inclusion of
On Sat, Feb 09, 2013 at 11:16:30PM +0800, Chow Loong Jin wrote:
On 09/02/2013 08:38, Russ Allbery wrote:
The proposal made in the Policy bug, which seems quite reasonable to me,
is that we should only annotate packages with Built-Using if there are
license implications to the inclusion of
Hi,
On Fri, Feb 08, 2013 at 08:36:56AM +0100, Raphael Hertzog wrote:
On Thu, 07 Feb 2013, Joey Hess wrote:
Ben Hutchings wrote:
What I mean is that a changes file for a sourceful upload has
'source' (and maybe some real architecture names) in the Architecture
field. Therefore
Johannes Schauer j.scha...@email.de writes:
There are apparently currently 67 .*-source.* packages in Debian Sid:
$ grep-dctrl -P --pattern -source -c Packages
67
A bunch of those are kernel module source packages for module-assistant,
so aren't as interesting for this particular purpose.
Hi,
Am Donnerstag, den 07.02.2013, 20:51 -0400 schrieb Joey Hess:
Did occur to me later that another option would be to just generate
Built-Using for all build dependnecies when the field is turned on in a
package. This would list too much, but perhaps that wouldn't matter.
OTOH, perhaps the
[Joachim Breitner]
this seems to be a good disk-space for human-time trade to me as well:
http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=699333
I'm a bit confused. Given that perhaps 99% of Built-Using would be for
trivial things like crt1.o and libgcc.a, which are concentrated into a
Peter Samuelson pe...@p12n.org writes:
[Joachim Breitner]
this seems to be a good disk-space for human-time trade to me as well:
http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=699333
I'm a bit confused. Given that perhaps 99% of Built-Using would be for
trivial things like crt1.o and
On 2013-02-09 01:38, Russ Allbery wrote:
Peter Samuelson pe...@p12n.org writes:
I'm a bit confused. Given that perhaps 99% of Built-Using would be for
trivial things like crt1.o and libgcc.a, which are concentrated into a
relatively tiny number of packages, it seems to make more sense to
Andreas Beckmann wrote:
Can't we just annotate the foo-source binary package in some way - it
should be pretty clear to the maintainer that he produces such a
special package.
No, because it's not just foo-source packages.
One example of a package that needs to use built-using is
The Built-Using field required[1] by recent policy results in some
problems for maintainers:
1. It needs to indicate the exact version of the source package used in
the build. So this has to be kept up-to-date, or dynamically
generated. Updating it manually is busywork and won't reflect
Joey Hess jo...@debian.org writes:
We can take advantage of the architecture specification in Build-Depends
being fairly wide-open. So this should not break existing parsers:
Build-Depends: foo [any built-using], bar [i386 amd64 built-using]
[...]
Alternatively, a package named built-using
Le Thu, Feb 07, 2013 at 03:09:07PM -0400, Joey Hess a écrit :
The Built-Using field required[1] by recent policy results in some
problems for maintainers:
[1] Or at least encouraged, depending on how policy and the intent of
policy is interpreted.
Hi Joey,
in section 5.3, that lists
On Thu, 2013-02-07 at 15:09 -0400, Joey Hess wrote:
The Built-Using field required[1] by recent policy results in some
problems for maintainers:
1. It needs to indicate the exact version of the source package used in
the build. So this has to be kept up-to-date, or dynamically
Ben Hutchings wrote:
Or 'source', short for 'the build-dependency's source code should be
treated as part of my source code'. This is already reserved as a
special architecture name for use in changes file.
Hmm, if it's reserved, what use it is reserved for? Wouldn't want to
step on toes. I
On Thu, 2013-02-07 at 20:51 -0400, Joey Hess wrote:
Ben Hutchings wrote:
Or 'source', short for 'the build-dependency's source code should be
treated as part of my source code'. This is already reserved as a
special architecture name for use in changes file.
Hmm, if it's reserved, what
Ben Hutchings wrote:
What I mean is that a changes file for a sourceful upload has
'source' (and maybe some real architecture names) in the Architecture
field. Therefore 'source' cannot be assigned as the name of a real
architecture.
Ah, sure.
However, source in Build-Depends could be taken
On Thu, 07 Feb 2013, Joey Hess wrote:
Ben Hutchings wrote:
What I mean is that a changes file for a sourceful upload has
'source' (and maybe some real architecture names) in the Architecture
field. Therefore 'source' cannot be assigned as the name of a real
architecture.
Ah, sure.
29 matches
Mail list logo
