On 16/05/07 at 10:11 +0200, Stefano Zacchiroli wrote: > Isn't "twice building" too coarse grained to spot actual violation of > this rule? I mean, packages that fail to build the second time have for > sure garbage left around after the former invocation of "clean". But it > is not granted that packages with garbage left around will fail to > build. > > Wouldn't it be better to unpack a package twice in two different > directories, build and clean in one dir and then compare the obtained > tree with the tree available in the other dir?
As already mentioned by others, you are going to get a lot of false
positives.
An alternative could be to keep the files created by the first build
(*.{deb,diff.gz,orig.tar.gz,dsc,changes}) and compare them with those
from the second build, using debdiff. This would allow to spot the most
obvious problems (e.g missing/added files).
--
| Lucas Nussbaum
| [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.lucas-nussbaum.net/ |
| jabber: [EMAIL PROTECTED] GPG: 1024D/023B3F4F |
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
