On Thu, Apr 17, 2025 at 09:45:53AM +0200, Santiago Vila wrote:
> > > I wish reproducible-builds people would activate DEB_BUILD_OPTIONS=nocheck
> > > for the second build, I think it would help. I don't think anybody will
> > > use that as an excuse to file more RC bugs.
> > They mentioned earlier
El 17/4/25 a las 9:21, Paul Gevers escribió:
Hi,
On 16-04-2025 19:59, Santiago Vila wrote:
I wish reproducible-builds people would activate DEB_BUILD_OPTIONS=nocheck
for the second build, I think it would help. I don't think anybody will
use that as an excuse to file more RC bugs.
They mentio
Hi,
On 16-04-2025 19:59, Santiago Vila wrote:
I wish reproducible-builds people would activate DEB_BUILD_OPTIONS=nocheck
for the second build, I think it would help. I don't think anybody will
use that as an excuse to file more RC bugs.
They mentioned earlier on IRC that they'll do just that
Simon wrote:
it would be better if future bug reporting for this scenario didn't
encourage maintainers to implement nocheck incorrectly.
You are absolutely right and I apologize for my mistake. Not just future
but also *present*, so I've now added a clarification note to all the
bugs I reported
On Wed, 16 Apr 2025 at 19:59:47 +0200, Santiago Vila wrote:
I wish reproducible-builds people would activate DEB_BUILD_OPTIONS=nocheck
for the second build
https://bugs.debian.org/786644
smcv
El 16/4/25 a las 18:52, Simon McVittie escribió:
the bug template should be more like
The contents of the resulting package are meant to be identical to
the package produced by a normal build, but this was not checked
during this particular mass-rebuild
or something along those l
On Wed, 16 Apr 2025 at 18:40:00 +0200, Paul Gevers wrote:
In one of the reports I read this:
"""
* When a package is built with the nocheck profile, it means:
- DEB_BUILD_OPTIONS=nocheck
(the tests should be skipped during the build)
- DEB_BUILD_PROFILES=nocheck
(Build-Depends marked are not
Hi Santiago,
On 16-04-2025 15:04, Santiago Vila wrote:
For reference, I've used this usertag for all the bugs (26 new and 3 old):
https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/pkgreport.cgi?users=debian-
q...@lists.debian.org;tag=ftbfs-nocheck-profile
In one of the reports I read this:
"""
* When a packa
El 13/4/25 a las 15:22, Simon McVittie escribió:
I think there are two subtly different things that you could mean by "with
nocheck":
1. DEB_BUILD_OPTIONS=nocheck, but no special build profiles
- therefore build-dependencies are still installed
2. DEB_BUILD_OPTIONS=nocheck DEB_BUILD_PROFI
Hi,
On 13-04-2025 17:12, Helmut Grohne wrote:
That said, Emilio explicitly asked them not to be filed as rc on irc.
That feels like RT is not internally consistent here. How about filing
them as rc now and tagging them trixie-ignore later if we deem the
effort too big?
What I think he means,
Hi Santiago,
On Sun, Apr 13, 2025 at 01:22:21PM +0200, Santiago Vila wrote:
> After building all the archive (trixie/sid) with nocheck, I only found 33 new
> packages which fail to build with nocheck that were not reported before.
> Admittedly
> a little bit more than I expected, but certainly no
El 13/4/25 a las 15:22, Simon McVittie escribió:
On a personal note, I consider those bugs interesting to fix because I think
there
should be a safe procedure to build all packages in the archive in a way which
minimizes
build failures as much as possible.
If that's what you want, I think sce
On Sun, 13 Apr 2025 at 13:22:21 +0200, Santiago Vila wrote:
After building all the archive (trixie/sid) with nocheck, I only found 33 new
packages which fail to build with nocheck that were not reported before.
Admittedly
a little bit more than I expected, but certainly not "hundreds" as some pe
Hello.
After building all the archive (trixie/sid) with nocheck, I only found 33 new
packages which fail to build with nocheck that were not reported before.
Admittedly
a little bit more than I expected, but certainly not "hundreds" as some people
feared.
(The main reason there are not so many
14 matches
Mail list logo
