Hideki Yamane:
> Hi Niels,
>
> Thanks for your explanation :)
>
> On Sat, 05 Jan 2019 09:52:00 +
> Niels Thykier wrote:
>> We are very far from being able to flip the default. There are some
>> 800+ packages that need to be updated to follow latest policy
>> requirements plus explicitly de
Hi Niels,
Thanks for your explanation :)
On Sat, 05 Jan 2019 09:52:00 +
Niels Thykier wrote:
> We are very far from being able to flip the default. There are some
> 800+ packages that need to be updated to follow latest policy
> requirements plus explicitly declare their need for (fake)roo
Hideki Yamane:
> Hi,
>
> On Thu, 03 Jan 2019 11:11:00 +
> Niels Thykier wrote:
>> * Migrating to "Rules-Requires-Root: no" where possible.
>
> Is there any plan to set "Rules-Requires-Root: no" for default?
> It seems that most of the packages doesn't require root privilege
> to be built
Hi,
On Thu, 03 Jan 2019 11:11:00 +
Niels Thykier wrote:
> * Migrating to "Rules-Requires-Root: no" where possible.
Is there any plan to set "Rules-Requires-Root: no" for default?
It seems that most of the packages doesn't require root privilege
to be built, so "default no" is better to r
Hi,
In the past 3½ years, several things have been improved and I am
therefore taking the liberty of closing this bug against general
(remaining issues as I understand it will be in individual packages).
In particular, I think we have identified all major issues, solved most
of them and triaged/a
On 2015-07-25 10:27, Niels Thykier wrote:
> [...]
>
>> So your ":=" variable will be evaluated 4 times, or 7+N times if you use
>> dh.
>>
>> [...]
>>
>
> It should be doable to reduce the dh side of it to 1+N by caching the
> result of make (in a file-based cache).
>
> ~Niels
>
>
Correction,
On 2015-07-24 12:19, Jakub Wilk wrote:
> * Jonas Smedegaard , 2015-07-23, 21:40:
>>> One mistake boost makes is using ":=" instead of plain "=". Contrary
>>> to popular belief, the former almost always causes more evaluation of
>>> $(shell) stuff, specially when dh is involved.
>> Could you elabora
Control: block -1 by 657390
[ Blocking on that, because there's currently no other such bug. So
not to imply this is lintian maintainers sole responsibility. ]
Hi!
On Fri, 2015-07-24 at 12:19:36 +0200, Jakub Wilk wrote:
> dpkg-buildpackage -B will run debian/rules 4 times: once to determine if
Processing control commands:
> block -1 by 657390
Bug #793404 [general] massive waste of CPU time in debian/rules by inline
commands
793404 was blocked by: 793440 793330 793443
793404 was not blocking any bugs.
Added blocking bug(s) of 793404: 657390
--
793404: http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bu
* Jonas Smedegaard , 2015-07-23, 21:40:
One mistake boost makes is using ":=" instead of plain "=". Contrary
to popular belief, the former almost always causes more evaluation of
$(shell) stuff, specially when dh is involved.
Could you elaborate on that?
dpkg-buildpackage -B will run debian/r
Processing control commands:
> block -1 by 793330
Bug #793404 [general] massive waste of CPU time in debian/rules by inline
commands
793404 was not blocked by any bugs.
793404 was not blocking any bugs.
Added blocking bug(s) of 793404: 793330
--
793404: http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.
Control: block -1 by 793330
Hi!
On Thu, 2015-07-23 at 19:43:46 +0200, Eduard Bloch wrote:
> Package: general
> Severity: minor
> The problem: I see lots of $(shell ...) stuff. In boost, there are about
> 12 such calls. And they run dpkg-architecture or dpkg-parsechangelogs or
> similar commands.
On Thu, Jul 23, 2015 at 09:08:15PM +0200, Jakub Wilk wrote:
> * Eduard Bloch , 2015-07-23, 19:43:
> >The problem: I see lots of $(shell ...) stuff. In boost, there are about
> >12 such calls. And they run dpkg-architecture or dpkg-parsechangelogs or
> >similar commands. When this was done a just co
Jonas Smedegaard wrote:
> Quoting Jakub Wilk (2015-07-23 21:08:15)
> > * Eduard Bloch , 2015-07-23, 19:43:
> >>The problem: I see lots of $(shell ...) stuff. In boost, there are
> >>about 12 such calls. And they run dpkg-architecture or
> >>dpkg-parsechangelogs or similar commands. When this was
Quoting Jakub Wilk (2015-07-23 21:08:15)
> * Eduard Bloch , 2015-07-23, 19:43:
>>The problem: I see lots of $(shell ...) stuff. In boost, there are
>>about 12 such calls. And they run dpkg-architecture or
>>dpkg-parsechangelogs or similar commands. When this was done a just
>>couple of times (i.
* Eduard Bloch , 2015-07-23, 19:43:
The problem: I see lots of $(shell ...) stuff. In boost, there are
about 12 such calls. And they run dpkg-architecture or
dpkg-parsechangelogs or similar commands. When this was done a just
couple of times (i.e. before dh(7)), that's acceptable. But now, it
On Thu, 23 Jul 2015 19:43:46 +0200 Eduard Bloch wrote:
> please tell me that I am wrong or that I start fighting the windmills if
> that's the case, but I have a general impression that something smells
> in lots of debian/rules files nowadays and we need a concept to improve
> that.
>
> The prob
Quoting Eduard Bloch (2015-07-23 19:43:46)
> The problem: I see lots of $(shell ...) stuff [in debian/rules files].
> In boost, there are about 12 such calls. And they run
> dpkg-architecture or dpkg-parsechangelogs or similar commands.
debian/rules is a make file. In the make language, variabl
Package: general
Severity: minor
Hello Fellow Maintainers,
please tell me that I am wrong or that I start fighting the windmills if
that's the case, but I have a general impression that something smells
in lots of debian/rules files nowadays and we need a concept to improve
that.
The problem: I
19 matches
Mail list logo
