Dear Mentors,
I'm a Debian Maintainer now and am uploading a new release of my package
alpine, for which I successfully uploaded 1.0+dfsg-1 to the archive.
I noticed that according to
http://buildd.debian.org/build.php?pkg=alpine , the Debian archive
never builds i386 packages. To my
On 12/01/2008, Asheesh Laroia wrote:
I'm a Debian Maintainer now and am uploading a new release of my
package alpine, for which I successfully uploaded 1.0+dfsg-1 to the
archive.
Indeed, check[1].
1. http://packages.qa.debian.org/a/alpine/news/20080105T014704Z.html
I noticed that according
Please use list-reply. No need to Cc people if they didn't request it,
see the Debian lists policy.
On 12/01/2008, Asheesh Laroia wrote:
Interesting. Is there a reason for this policy, or is it just
historical?
ISTR it was intended to ensure the package at least builds fine in the
developer's
On Sat, 12 Jan 2008, Cyril Brulebois wrote:
Rejected: source only uploads are not supported.
That's exactly the point: at the moment, source-only uploads are
REJECTED. You have to provide at least the binaries for one
architecture.
Interesting. Is there a reason for this policy, or is it
Asheesh Laroia wrote:
I'm a Debian Maintainer now
Congratulations.
That sort of creeps me out - I'd much rather exercise a buildd and make
sure that a pristine package gets into the archive.
It's a bit of a historical thing, left over from the days when everybody
used i386 boxes. There is
On 12/01/2008, Colin Tuckley wrote:
It's a bit of a historical thing, left over from the days when
everybody used i386 boxes. There is only one i386 buildd (which was
down recently).
The idea is that since you should be test building your package in a
clean sid chroot anyway you might as
On Sat, Jan 12, 2008 at 11:51:14AM +0100, Cyril Brulebois wrote:
ISTR it was intended to ensure the package at least builds fine in the
developer's environment, to reduce FTBFSes. I wasn't there at that time
though, but I've been told several times that I'll be an old DD before
it gets a
* Asheesh Laroia [EMAIL PROTECTED] [080112 11:41]:
That's exactly the point: at the moment, source-only uploads are
REJECTED. You have to provide at least the binaries for one
architecture.
Interesting. Is there a reason for this policy, or is it just
historical?
Sorry if this sounds
* Cyril Brulebois [EMAIL PROTECTED] [080112 12:13]:
But nothing ensures it is built in a chroot, which might occasion
disparities between uploaded binaries and built-on-the-buildd-network
binaries.
Binaries do not need a chroot, just a clean unstable environment.
While a minimal chroot is
On 12/01/2008, Bernhard R. Link wrote:
While a minimal chroot is good to test against missing
build-dependencies, a full real-world system is needed to test for
missing build-conflicts or configure switches to disable specific
autodetections.
Sure.
So when you get disparities between a
* Cyril Brulebois [EMAIL PROTECTED] [080112 14:38]:
Well, no. A ???pure unstable environment??? on a development box can have
various configuration tweaks, differing from the defaults shipped with
the packages, and that can impact the built binaries.
Source packages are supposed to be also
Bernhard R. Link wrote:
While a minimal chroot is good to test against missing
build-dependencies, a full real-world system is needed to test for
missing build-conflicts or configure switches to disable specific
autodetections.
But nothing in the current system ensures that packages are built
On Sat, 12 Jan 2008, Stefano Zacchiroli wrote:
On Sat, Jan 12, 2008 at 11:51:14AM +0100, Cyril Brulebois wrote:
ISTR it was intended to ensure the package at least builds fine in the
developer's environment, to reduce FTBFSes. I wasn't there at that time
though, but I've been told several
On 12/01/2008, Asheesh Laroia wrote:
I realize that the arch: all packages would need technical attention
before the policy can be realized in practice, and there may be other
small technical issues to work out, but I imagine there are solutions
to those issues.
I guess some packages might be
On Sat, 12 Jan 2008, Cyril Brulebois wrote:
On 12/01/2008, Asheesh Laroia wrote:
I realize that the arch: all packages would need technical attention
before the policy can be realized in practice, and there may be other
small technical issues to work out, but I imagine there are solutions
to
Il giorno Mon, 07 Jan 2008 05:52:03 +0100
Michael Biebl [EMAIL PROTECTED] ha scritto:
Could you please make the yelp dependency a Recommends?
May I ask why?
I believe yelp is better suited as a Depends (AFAIK, to read gnome-doc
documentation, you need yelp)
Kindly,
David
--
. ''`. Debian
Asheesh Laroia skrev:
others here on debian-mentors and on debian-devel. I think Require
binaries and throw them away is a very good strategy. It seems there
is fairly wide consensus that having the buildds build every package is
a good thing.
Man, source-only uploads would literally save
On 13/01/2008, David Paleino wrote:
Could you please make the yelp dependency a Recommends?
May I ask why?
So that it gets pulled in by default. But so that one can still choose
not to install yelp at all, e.g. because one isn't interested at all by
documentation (e.g. because online helps
18 matches
Mail list logo
