On Tue, Feb 02, 2010 at 07:59:53AM +0100, Lucas Nussbaum wrote:
> On 02/02/10 at 01:07 +0100, Wouter Verhelst wrote:
> > At any rate, here are some facts:
> > - A package that builds differently because something is (or is not)
> > installed on the build system is buggy. Period. It has nothing to
On 02/02/10 at 01:07 +0100, Wouter Verhelst wrote:
> At any rate, here are some facts:
> - A package that builds differently because something is (or is not)
> installed on the build system is buggy. Period. It has nothing to do
> with the build system, it's the package.
... but I question tha
On Wed, Jan 20, 2010 at 10:37:48PM +1300, Lucas Nussbaum wrote:
> On 20/01/10 at 00:48 -0800, Steve Langasek wrote:
> > On Wed, Jan 20, 2010 at 02:22:33PM +1300, Lucas Nussbaum wrote:
> >
> > > Why spend a lot of time on tasks that provide little benefit, and also
> > > some disadvantages (in some
On Tue, Jan 19, 2010 at 03:40:22PM -0800, Russ Allbery wrote:
> Lucas Nussbaum writes:
> > On 19/01/10 at 14:36 -0800, Russ Allbery wrote:
>
> >> Well, I would argue that proper package builds in dirty environments is
> >> something we want in Debian anyway, and while this isn't the ideal
> >> me
Patrick Schoenfeld writes:
> On Wed, Jan 20, 2010 at 10:30:13AM -0800, Russ Allbery wrote:
>>> That does not mean that we shouldn't fix such bugs if they arise
>>> (obviously we should) but having priority on it is a different thing.
>> Then I'm not sure that you're disagreeing with me?
> Oh I
On Wed, Jan 20, 2010 at 10:30:13AM -0800, Russ Allbery wrote:
> > That does not mean that we shouldn't fix such bugs if they arise
> > (obviously we should) but having priority on it is a different thing.
>
> Then I'm not sure that you're disagreeing with me?
Oh I don't. However in one of your fi
Patrick Schoenfeld writes:
> On Tue, Jan 19, 2010 at 04:04:07PM -0800, Russ Allbery wrote:
>> Uh, since as long as I've been part of the project. I think this is at
>> least the third time that I recall the same topic coming up on -devel.
> Wow. How often a topic comes up on -devel is an indica
* Lucas Nussbaum [100120 01:26]:
> There are two ways to attack that problem:
>
> (1) We decide that we want to provide the guarantee that packages
> build the correct way in unclean envs. That mean making such bugs RC,
> basically, and making efforts to find such bugs.
If you s/unclean/non-minim
On Wed, Jan 20, 2010 at 10:37:48PM +1300, Lucas Nussbaum wrote:
> > I'm not asking anyone to spend time on this task, but I still consider
> > missing build-conflicts a bug. Ignoring these bugs by insisting on clean
> > chroot environments for all official package builds is no solution - what if
>
On Wed, Jan 20, 2010 at 10:13:46PM +1300, Lucas Nussbaum wrote:
> What's the problem with documentation such as
> https://wiki.ubuntu.com/PbuilderHowto (except it's an Ubuntu
> documentation)? I think that the process of building with pbuilder is
> reasonably well documented.
Let's be realistic. W
On 20/01/10 at 09:30 +0100, Stefano Zacchiroli wrote:
> On Tue, Jan 19, 2010 at 03:40:22PM -0800, Russ Allbery wrote:
> > Because we want our users to be able to patch and rebuild our software to
> > suit their needs. Asking them to set up a chroot build environment is
> > asking quite a lot.
>
>
On 20/01/10 at 00:48 -0800, Steve Langasek wrote:
> On Wed, Jan 20, 2010 at 02:22:33PM +1300, Lucas Nussbaum wrote:
>
> > Why spend a lot of time on tasks that provide little benefit, and also
> > some disadvantages (in some cases, the fixes might be non-obvious, and
> > requires changes to the pa
On Tue, Jan 19, 2010 at 04:04:07PM -0800, Russ Allbery wrote:
> > hu? since when do we have a broader interest in people patching and
> > rebuilding packages? I know that there are *some* people interested in
> > that (me included) but I don't see that a broader audience wants to
> > support that.
On Tue, Jan 19, 2010 at 11:32:17PM +0100, Martin Zobel-Helas wrote:
> > Would it be time to start looking at LVM snapshops + sbuild perhaps?
>
> we already have two or three buildds doing that... The buildd team (esp.
> HE) working on that and if it works out to be stable enough, we can see
> if w
On Tue, Jan 19, 2010 at 02:36:08PM -0800, Russ Allbery wrote:
> Neil McGovern writes:
> > On Tue, Jan 19, 2010 at 11:59:35AM -0800, Russ Allbery wrote:
>
> >> This is a bug in the netatalk Debian packaging. You cannot assume the
> >> package will be built in a clean chroot; among other things, t
On Wed, Jan 20, 2010 at 02:22:33PM +1300, Lucas Nussbaum wrote:
> Why spend a lot of time on tasks that provide little benefit, and also
> some disadvantages (in some cases, the fixes might be non-obvious, and
> requires changes to the packaging that tend to obscure it, for example
> by using --di
On Tue, Jan 19, 2010 at 03:40:22PM -0800, Russ Allbery wrote:
> Because we want our users to be able to patch and rebuild our software to
> suit their needs. Asking them to set up a chroot build environment is
> asking quite a lot.
AOL. Yesterday night I drafted a reply (which has lingered in my
On 20/01/10 at 01:49 +0100, Holger Levsen wrote:
> On Mittwoch, 20. Januar 2010, Lucas Nussbaum wrote:
> > There are two ways to attack that problem:
>
> how about the compromise and doing both, except that for (1) we file the bugs
> with severity important?
There are a lot of more useful QA tas
Hi,
On Mittwoch, 20. Januar 2010, Lucas Nussbaum wrote:
> There are two ways to attack that problem:
how about the compromise and doing both, except that for (1) we file the bugs
with severity important?
cheers,
Holger
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message par
Lucas Nussbaum writes:
> On 19/01/10 at 16:04 -0800, Russ Allbery wrote:
People do occasionally test whether packages rebuild properly in
dirty environments and file bugs when they don't. Being absolutely
certain it will always work is, of course, hard, but I think fixing
the
On 19/01/10 at 16:04 -0800, Russ Allbery wrote:
> >> People do occasionally test whether packages rebuild properly in dirty
> >> environments and file bugs when they don't. Being absolutely certain it
> >> will always work is, of course, hard, but I think fixing the bug when we
> >> detect it is t
Patrick Schoenfeld writes:
> On Tue, Jan 19, 2010 at 03:40:22PM -0800, Russ Allbery wrote:
>> Because we want our users to be able to patch and rebuild our software
>> to suit their needs. Asking them to set up a chroot build environment
>> is asking quite a lot.
> hu? since when do we have a b
On Wed, Jan 20, 2010 at 00:48:15 +0100, Patrick Schoenfeld wrote:
> hu? since when do we have a broader interest in people patching
> and rebuilding packages? I know that there are *some* people interested
> in that (me included) but I don't see that a broader
> audience wants to support that.
>
Hi,
On Tue, Jan 19, 2010 at 03:40:22PM -0800, Russ Allbery wrote:
> > Why would we want that?
>
> > I mean, it's very difficult to guarantee that packages build correctly
> > in dirty envs. I don't really see the point of enforcing that when we
> > have the technology (pbuilder, sbuild + lvm snap
Lucas Nussbaum writes:
> On 19/01/10 at 14:36 -0800, Russ Allbery wrote:
>> Well, I would argue that proper package builds in dirty environments is
>> something we want in Debian anyway, and while this isn't the ideal
>> method to find it, it would be a bug regardless of how the buildds
>> worked
Hi,
On Dienstag, 19. Januar 2010, Martin Zobel-Helas wrote:
> we already have two or three buildds doing that... The buildd team (esp.
> HE) working on that and if it works out to be stable enough, we can see
> if we can roll out it to all buildds.
very cool. thank you!
cheers,
Holger
On 19/01/10 at 14:36 -0800, Russ Allbery wrote:
> Neil McGovern writes:
> > On Tue, Jan 19, 2010 at 11:59:35AM -0800, Russ Allbery wrote:
>
> >> This is a bug in the netatalk Debian packaging. You cannot assume the
> >> package will be built in a clean chroot; among other things, the buildd
> >>
Neil McGovern writes:
> On Tue, Jan 19, 2010 at 11:59:35AM -0800, Russ Allbery wrote:
>> This is a bug in the netatalk Debian packaging. You cannot assume the
>> package will be built in a clean chroot; among other things, the buildd
>> software explicitly does not guarantee that all packages wi
Hi Neil,
On Tue Jan 19, 2010 at 22:29:25 +, Neil McGovern wrote:
> On Tue, Jan 19, 2010 at 11:59:35AM -0800, Russ Allbery wrote:
> > This is a bug in the netatalk Debian packaging. You cannot assume the
> > package will be built in a clean chroot; among other things, the buildd
> > software
On Tue, Jan 19, 2010 at 11:59:35AM -0800, Russ Allbery wrote:
> This is a bug in the netatalk Debian packaging. You cannot assume the
> package will be built in a clean chroot; among other things, the buildd
> software explicitly does not guarantee that all packages will be removed.
>
Would it b
Fabian Greffrath writes:
> it seems that some buildds occasionally have libssl-dev installed in
> their chroot. A friend of mine has found out that the netatalk package
> depends on libssl0.9.8 [sparc] in sid and [hppa, mipsel] in squeeze.
> Other architectures are not affected. For GPL-licensed
31 matches
Mail list logo
