Bug#913229: release.debian.org: RC status of merged-/usr bugs?

On Sat, Nov 17, 2018 at 04:51:21PM +, Steve McIntyre wrote: > >> The way I see this is, that building locally is still supported. > >this is an important, unfixed bug. > for upload to the archive, agreed. However, we still support people > building packages for their own use, of course. And

Bug#913229: release.debian.org: RC status of merged-/usr bugs?

[ Trimming the large CC list a bit... ] On Sat, Nov 17, 2018 at 01:05:23PM +, Holger Levsen wrote: >hi, > >while I don't really disagree with what you said... I also think: > >On Sat, Nov 17, 2018 at 02:00:03PM +0100, Michael Biebl wrote: >> The way I see this is, that building locally is

Bug#913229: release.debian.org: RC status of merged-/usr bugs?

hi, while I don't really disagree with what you said... I also think: On Sat, Nov 17, 2018 at 02:00:03PM +0100, Michael Biebl wrote: > The way I see this is, that building locally is still supported. this is an important, unfixed bug. > We can binNMU those packages in both cases to have

Bug#913229: release.debian.org: RC status of merged-/usr bugs?

Am 17.11.18 um 12:41 schrieb Adrian Bunk: > This would be a huge regression, buildds aren't the only place where > packages get built. > > It doesn't sounds right that we suddenly start declaring it "misbuilt" > when a user builds a package locally with dpkg-buildpackage as has been > working

Bug#913229: release.debian.org: RC status of merged-/usr bugs?

On Fri, Nov 09, 2018 at 12:26:15PM +, Simon McVittie wrote: > On Fri, 09 Nov 2018 at 06:31:00 +, Niels Thykier wrote: > > As I understand it, what this question effectively ends up being is "Do > > we commit to supporting merged-/usr in Buster in all source packages > > (making such bugs

Bug#913229: release.debian.org: RC status of merged-/usr bugs?

On Fri, 09 Nov 2018 at 06:31:00 +, Niels Thykier wrote: > As I understand it, what this question effectively ends up being is "Do > we commit to supporting merged-/usr in Buster in all source packages > (making such bugs RC) OR do we rollback the default merged-/usr in > debootstrap (making

Bug#913229: release.debian.org: RC status of merged-/usr bugs?

Simon McVittie: > Package: release.debian.org > Severity: normal > User: m...@linux.it > Usertags: usrmerge > > debootstrap in >= buster produces merged-/usr chroots for buster and sid > by default. Some packages are misbuilt in such chroots: the only concrete > example I have that is currently

Bug#913229: release.debian.org: RC status of merged-/usr bugs?

On Thu, Nov 08, 2018 at 05:53:59PM +, Simon McVittie wrote: > On Thu, 08 Nov 2018 at 15:50:48 +, Holger Levsen wrote: > > On Thu, Nov 08, 2018 at 04:31:32PM +0100, Michael Biebl wrote: > > > Wasn't there the idea to utilise the reproducible-build effort to detect > > > binaries that differ

Bug#913229: release.debian.org: RC status of merged-/usr bugs?

Am 08.11.18 um 19:03 schrieb Michael Biebl: > I'm basically with you on this. > I think we should stick with unmerged-usr on the buildds as the > resulting binaries are more likely to work with both merged and unmerged > usr setups (at least for the time being). To be clear: I don't think

Bug#913229: release.debian.org: RC status of merged-/usr bugs?

Am 08.11.18 um 18:53 schrieb Simon McVittie: > On Thu, 08 Nov 2018 at 15:50:48 +, Holger Levsen wrote: >> On Thu, Nov 08, 2018 at 04:31:32PM +0100, Michael Biebl wrote: >>> Wasn't there the idea to utilise the reproducible-build effort to detect >>> binaries that differ depending on whether

Bug#913229: release.debian.org: RC status of merged-/usr bugs?

On Thu, 08 Nov 2018 at 15:50:48 +, Holger Levsen wrote: > On Thu, Nov 08, 2018 at 04:31:32PM +0100, Michael Biebl wrote: > > Wasn't there the idea to utilise the reproducible-build effort to detect > > binaries that differ depending on whether they were built in merged-usr > > environment or

Bug#913229: release.debian.org: RC status of merged-/usr bugs?

On Thu, Nov 08, 2018 at 04:31:32PM +0100, Michael Biebl wrote: > Wasn't there the idea to utilise the reproducible-build effort to detect > binaries that differ depending on whether they were built in merged-usr > environment or not? If that is feasible, this would allow for a less > disruptive

Bug#913229: release.debian.org: RC status of merged-/usr bugs?

Am 08.11.18 um 16:21 schrieb Simon McVittie: > On Thu, 08 Nov 2018 at 14:59:29 +0100, Mattia Rizzolo wrote: >> On Thu, Nov 08, 2018 at 01:44:14PM +, Simon McVittie wrote: >>> I've opened sbuild-createchroot bug >>> suggesting that it should create

Bug#913229: release.debian.org: RC status of merged-/usr bugs?

Am 08.11.18 um 14:44 schrieb Simon McVittie: > There are almost certainly others; most of them are probably similar to > the quilt bug, where the absolute path to an executable on the build > system ends up in the package, but to support non-merged-/usr systems > we need to canonicalize that path

Bug#913229: release.debian.org: RC status of merged-/usr bugs?

On Thu, 08 Nov 2018 at 14:59:29 +0100, Mattia Rizzolo wrote: > On Thu, Nov 08, 2018 at 01:44:14PM +, Simon McVittie wrote: > > I've opened sbuild-createchroot bug > > suggesting that it should create non-merged-/usr chroots to sidestep > > this for buildd

Bug#913229: release.debian.org: RC status of merged-/usr bugs?

On Thu, Nov 08, 2018 at 01:44:14PM +, Simon McVittie wrote: > debootstrap in >= buster produces merged-/usr chroots for buster and sid > by default. Some packages are misbuilt in such chroots: the only concrete > example I have that is currently open is > in

Bug#913229: release.debian.org: RC status of merged-/usr bugs?

Package: release.debian.org Severity: normal User: m...@linux.it Usertags: usrmerge debootstrap in >= buster produces merged-/usr chroots for buster and sid by default. Some packages are misbuilt in such chroots: the only concrete example I have that is currently open is