Hi Roger. Roger Leigh <rle...@codelibre.net> (06/12/2009): > Currently, the reason why your uploads default to unstable is > because sbuild defaults to unstable unless you override it.
Yeah, I gathered that… :) > I think the safest solution here is to simply not set it by default, > and require the user to always specify it (or set it in their > .sbuildrc). Agreed. > This is pretty much exactly the same chicken-and-egg problem as > #529281: we don't know the package distribution until we download > and unpack it, and we need to do this inside the chroot environment, > but we can't know which one to use. In my (specific, I agree but still) case, I did specify a chroot… but that's addressed by your next points. > - the chroot name is immaterial since one may name them > anything you like (and indeed use unstable chroots for > experimental building). If you specify a chroot with > -c, we can't infer the distribution name from this. Alright. I came to a similar conclusion after looking up what happened. What confused me was that earlier (one year ago I think) I noticed there were even chroot aliases (like unstable-amd64 for sid-amd64, etc.) in schroot configuration files, so I had in mind that there were some kind of dist ←→ chroot mapping. > - we can, however, infer the chroot from the distribution, > though -c can override the default chroot name. I still have a single chroot right now, so I have no strong feelings right now. :) [[[ Speaking from a developer point of view (as opposed to buildd), I think I'm going to continue doing the following: $ debuild -S -i -uc -us $ # lintian gets run $ sbuild-shell-wrapper ../package_version_source.changes The shell wrapper would then take care of getting the distribution from the .changes, and call sbuild on the matching .dsc ]]] > - we could add a distribution=… or sbuild-distribution > parameter to schroot to allow chroot->distribution > inference to work robustly, but I'd rather keep sbuild- > specific hacks out of schroot unless unavoidable. That's the kind of parameter I immediately checked (and why I pasted my conf file). I guess it could be handy but I have no strong feelings either, your call. > If this makes sense and you are OK with it, I'll remove the > distribution=unstable default from sbuild. I think it would be a nice move. I guess it deserves a quick check on the buildd side to make sure sbuild is called with the appropriate parameter, so that we don't suddenly end up with no packages for unstable this time. ;) Mraw, KiBi.
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
