Hi, Quoting Niko Tyni (2016-12-17 13:40:32) > On Thu, Dec 15, 2016 at 02:21:49PM +0100, Johannes Schauer wrote: > > Quoting Niko Tyni (2016-12-15 14:04:19) > > > In general, I like the concept of sbuild/pbuilder accepting .buildinfo > > > files > > > as input. This makes the user interface simple. My expectation for this > > > mode > > > of operation would be for the builder to recreate the old build as > > > closely as > > > possible. > > > > I agree but would add that they should also have the ability to tell the > > user > > if the checksums of the re-compiled packages do or do not match the > > information > > in the supplied .buildinfo file. > > I suppose; please just make sure such a failure is easily distinguishable > from a failing build.
My plan would be to add it as a success/failure line next to the lintian or autopkgtest status at the bottom of the build log. > > I don't care whether we have debrebuild as a wrapper to sbuild/pbuilder or > > sbuild/pbuilder use a common tool to figure out the right lines for the > > sources.list inside the chroot. I just want to have .buildinfo support for > > sbuild in Stretch and if either solution is not in unstable soon, then my > > plan is to just add .buildinfo support to sbuild myself so that it's still > > included in the next Debian stable release. > > Having this just inside sbuild for stretch and refactoring it out later > if necessary works for me, but I'm not sure if HW42 and/or Mattia have > thoughts about the pbuilder side? Putting them back in CC. I am especially waiting for a response from HW42 who volunteered to "keep an eye on it" but who didn't come back to my pings on IRC yet. HW42: I need to know what your plan is for Stretch so that I can decide what to include in the next sbuild release. > I note that we're only getting started on working with .buildinfo files. It > seems possible that we encounter enough common tasks that something like a > 'buildinfo-utils' package will be warranted, in which case a 'buildinfo > find-debs' command would fit in there. I'm all in for breaking out common functionality into tools used by multiple parties. Thanks! cheers, josch
signature.asc
Description: signature
