Johannes Schauer: > 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.
Sorry about the late reply. I didn't had any plans sofar for stretch. Given that a) the .buildinfo format it self b) the services around .buildinfo c) the interface of debrebuild (or buildinfo-utils, or whatever) is not really clear/finished yet I would expect that one need anyway the backports version. If you think otherwise we can of course push to get the current version into stretch. >> 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. So you (at least josch and ntyi) seem to prefer to have the user facing part in sbuild/pbuilder and the common functionality in some kind of library. How should the "library" interface look like for sbuild?
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
