----- Original Message ----- From: "Junichi Uekawa" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "Tacvek" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Tuesday, August 01, 2006 7:56 PM
Subject: Re: [Pbuilder-maint] Bug#381036: pdebuild, add missing features of normal debuild


Hi,

It would be nice if pdebuild would be updated to support many
of the features that debuild has, that pdebuild currently lacks.
For example automatic lintian and linda runs. The easiest way to
keep the two in sync would be to patch debuild to support pbuilder
building, and replacing pdebuild with a simple script that invokes
debuild with the correct options. If this sounds reasonable to
you and if you belive it would not be too very difficult, I may
look into creating a patch.

Please feel free to go ahead.

I the design should probably be something like:

debuild runs:
1. builds normally with dpkg-buildpackage

debuild does not use build-package anymore, but re-implements it, allowing for a complicated hook system.

2. (NEW) builds with pbuilder (or cowbuilder), detecting /var/cache/pbuilder/base.cow or base.tgz
3. runs lintian/linda on the result as usual.


That would work, ans indeed should be rather easy.
My main concerns about this are building twice offers relativly little benefit,
especially since some packages take a very long time to build.
Also, unless pbuilder/cowbuilder is internally using debuild in the chroot, the
hooks mechanism provided by debuild would not be useful.

I think debuild can be invoked to act more-or-less just like dpkg-buildpackage except for providing hooks. If that were used internelly by pbuilder/cowbuilder then it would obviously become a non-issue. However, that would be a second statge of integration
and it would make absolutley no sense to start implementing that
before debuild can invoke pbuilder/cowbuild.

Note that I do intend to investigate this more, but I make no guarantees. I may not actually get around to it.


--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Reply via email to