On 11/19/2014 07:42 AM, Jérémy Bobbio wrote: > While I still think it would be a good idea to write these patches and > push for a canonical build location, I am now thinking that there's a > way to be a bit more flexible. If we would record the build path as part > of the environment in the .buildinfo, the (yet-to-be-written) `srebuild` > script could unpack the source in that location and simply build it from > there.
on the one hand, i'm a bit leery about allowing srebuild to
automatically place the build tree at any arbitrary location.
what if .buildinfo says "oh yeah, unpack this thing into /etc" (or /root
or /usr)?
otoh, the .buildinfo also says "install these versions of these
packages" so maybe it's just not that big a deal. (and srebuild could
also just decline to unpack things in particularly ugly locations)
On the third hand, this doesn't really help the gdb use case at all :/
Ultimately, i don't think i see any real harm in including the build
path in .buildinfo -- certainly once we get around to finally making
things always build in the canonical build path, then great! everyone's
will look the same.
And if including the build path in .buildinfo unblocks the current
process at all, it's probably worth doing.
--dkg
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
_______________________________________________ Reproducible-builds mailing list Reproducible-builds@lists.alioth.debian.org http://lists.alioth.debian.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/reproducible-builds
