Re: Source package without a binary

2012-01-18 Thread Goswin von Brederlow
Joachim Breitner writes: > Dear devel, > > I have an interesting case for a hypothetical „source package without > binary packages“: The haskell compiler comes with an extensive test > suite. This test suite > 1. is distributed separately from the sources, > 2. takes a long time to

Re: Source package without a binary

2012-01-07 Thread Joachim Breitner
Hi Guillem, Am Samstag, den 07.01.2012, 02:40 +0100 schrieb Guillem Jover: > That's what I did for the last posixtestsuite 1.5.2-4 upload, and > while the “dummy” binary package might seem a bit worthless, it has > some advantages; it keeps the maintainer build log, something the buildd > network

Re: Source package without a binary

2012-01-06 Thread Guillem Jover
Hi! On Thu, 2012-01-05 at 18:26:13 +0100, Joachim Breitner wrote: > Theoretically, there is no interesting binary package produced from this > source package and it seems that the policy does not explicitly require > that a source package produces binary packages... but I am certain that > this is

Re: Source package without a binary

2012-01-06 Thread Joachim Breitner
Hi, Am Donnerstag, den 05.01.2012, 22:33 -0800 schrieb Josh Triplett: > Joachim Breitner wrote: > > From my point of view, it seems desirable to package the testsuite as a > > source-package of its own, build-depending on GHC and the additional > > libraries required, and upload that. Our autobuil

Re: Source package without a binary

2012-01-05 Thread Josh Triplett
Joachim Breitner wrote: > From my point of view, it seems desirable to package the testsuite as a > source-package of its own, build-depending on GHC and the additional > libraries required, and upload that. Our autobuilding infrastructure > would thus run the testsuite on the various architectures

Re: Source package without a binary

2012-01-05 Thread Charles Plessy
Le Thu, Jan 05, 2012 at 06:26:13PM +0100, Joachim Breitner a écrit : > > From my point of view, it seems desirable to package the testsuite as a > source-package of its own, build-depending on GHC and the additional > libraries required, and upload that. Our autobuilding infrastructure > would thu

Re: Source package without a binary

2012-01-05 Thread Joachim Breitner
Hi, Am Freitag, den 06.01.2012, 00:47 +0100 schrieb Reinhard Tartler: > On Do, Jan 05, 2012 at 18:26:13 (CET), Joachim Breitner wrote: > > Dear devel, > > > > I have an interesting case for a hypothetical „source package without > > binary packages“: The haskell compiler comes with an extensive te

Re: Source package without a binary

2012-01-05 Thread Reinhard Tartler
On Do, Jan 05, 2012 at 18:26:13 (CET), Joachim Breitner wrote: > Dear devel, > > I have an interesting case for a hypothetical „source package without > binary packages“: The haskell compiler comes with an extensive test > suite. This test suite > 1. is distributed separately from the sources

Re: Source package without a binary

2012-01-05 Thread Peter Samuelson
> On 05/01/2012 18:26, Joachim Breitner wrote: > > So the logical conclusion is to build a binary package from the > > source that contains nothing (or maybe a log of the test results) > > and clearly states in its description that there is no point in > > installing this binary package. > > > >

Re: Source package without a binary

2012-01-05 Thread Jean-Christophe Dubacq
On 05/01/2012 18:26, Joachim Breitner wrote: > Dear devel, > > I have an interesting case for a hypothetical „source package without > binary packages“: The haskell compiler comes with an extensive test > suite. This test suite > 1. is distributed separately from the sources, > 2. takes

Re: Source package without a binary

2012-01-05 Thread Tanguy Ortolo
Joachim Breitner, 2012-01-05 18:26+0100 (gmane.linux.debian.devel.general): > Theoretically, there is no interesting binary package produced from this > source package and it seems that the policy does not explicitly require > that a source package produces binary packages... but I am certain that