Hi!
On Mon, 2016-12-19 at 13:12:32 +0100, Johannes Schauer wrote:
> Quoting Mattia Rizzolo (2016-12-18 11:38:24)
> > On Sat, Dec 17, 2016 at 09:27:12PM -0500, James McCoy wrote:
> > > As Arno hinted at, it's to have reliable builds. A transient inability
> > > to install the first arm of an alter
On Mon, Dec 19, 2016 at 01:12:32PM +0100, Johannes Schauer wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Quoting Mattia Rizzolo (2016-12-18 11:38:24)
> > On Sat, Dec 17, 2016 at 09:27:12PM -0500, James McCoy wrote:
> > > As Arno hinted at, it's to have reliable builds. A transient inability
> > > to install the first arm of
On Mon, Dec 19, 2016 at 09:13:25AM +0100, Daniel Pocock wrote:
> Provides: libssl1.0-dev
>
> in the control file and would that ensure it works without tweaks?
It might, but the proper way to fix it is:
Build-Depends: libssl1.0-dev (>= 1.0.0) | libssl-dev (<< 1.1)
i.e., put what's in unstable f
On 2016-12-19 12:12, Johannes Schauer wrote:
Imagine you even directly build-depend on a virtual package. There is
currently
no way to somehow "reliably" always pick the same real provider of that
virtual
package.
I'm not sure how that isn't exactly what you're doing by depending on
"provide
Hi,
Quoting Mattia Rizzolo (2016-12-18 11:38:24)
> On Sat, Dec 17, 2016 at 09:27:12PM -0500, James McCoy wrote:
> > As Arno hinted at, it's to have reliable builds. A transient inability
> > to install the first arm of an alternation should caused a dep-wait
> > state, not building with the alter
Hi,
Quoting James McCoy (2016-12-18 16:04:47)
> On Sun, Dec 18, 2016 at 02:26:09PM +0100, Ondrej Novy wrote:
> > Hi,
> >
> > 2016-12-18 14:14 GMT+01:00 James McCoy :
> >
> > Well, sbuild's man page documents that the aptitude resolver will check
> > alternatives. If it doesn't in practic
On 17/12/16 17:40, Christian Seiler wrote:
> On 12/17/2016 04:49 PM, Daniel Pocock wrote:
>> In my reSIProcate control[1] file, I included the following:
>>
>> Build-Depends: ... , libssl-dev (<< 1.1) | libssl1.0-dev (>= 1.0.0), ...
>>
>> pdebuild correctly builds it for sid with libssl1.0-dev fr
On Sun, Dec 18, 2016 at 02:26:09PM +0100, Ondrej Novy wrote:
> Hi,
>
> 2016-12-18 14:14 GMT+01:00 James McCoy :
>
> Well, sbuild's man page documents that the aptitude resolver will check
> alternatives. If it doesn't in practice, that sounds like a bug.
>
>
> you need to run sbuild wit
Hi,
2016-12-18 14:14 GMT+01:00 James McCoy :
> Well, sbuild's man page documents that the aptitude resolver will check
> alternatives. If it doesn't in practice, that sounds like a bug.
>
you need to run sbuild with "--resolve-alternatives" or add same option in
sbuildrc. Imho bug in manpage.
-
On Dec 18, 2016 05:38, "Mattia Rizzolo" wrote:
On Sat, Dec 17, 2016 at 09:27:12PM -0500, James McCoy wrote:
> Now, backports are a different story because they use a different
> resolver which will pull in alternates.
afaik sbuild strips the alternatives while parsing the .dsc (or
d/control or w
Hi,
2016-12-18 11:38 GMT+01:00 Mattia Rizzolo :
> afaik sbuild strips the alternatives while parsing the .dsc (or
> d/control or whatever), before passing the information to the resolvers,
> so even if you use another resolver for -bpo you still get the same
> behaviour.
right:
https://buildd.de
On Sat, Dec 17, 2016 at 09:27:12PM -0500, James McCoy wrote:
> As Arno hinted at, it's to have reliable builds. A transient inability
> to install the first arm of an alternation should caused a dep-wait
> state, not building with the alternate Build-Depends.
which is kinda bullshit, as a differe
On Sat, Dec 17, 2016 at 09:27:12PM -0500, James McCoy wrote:
> Now, backports are a different story because they use a different
> resolver which will pull in alternates.
That's great to hear. Thanks.
--
Sean Whitton
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
On Sun, Dec 18, 2016 at 01:55:16AM +, Sean Whitton wrote:
> Hello Christian,
>
> On Sat, Dec 17, 2016 at 05:40:49PM +0100, Christian Seiler wrote:
> > On 12/17/2016 04:49 PM, Daniel Pocock wrote:
> > > In my reSIProcate control[1] file, I included the following:
> > >
> > > Build-Depends: ...
Hello Christian,
On Sat, Dec 17, 2016 at 05:40:49PM +0100, Christian Seiler wrote:
> On 12/17/2016 04:49 PM, Daniel Pocock wrote:
> > In my reSIProcate control[1] file, I included the following:
> >
> > Build-Depends: ... , libssl-dev (<< 1.1) | libssl1.0-dev (>= 1.0.0), ...
> >
> > pdebuild cor
On 12/17/2016 04:49 PM, Daniel Pocock wrote:
> In my reSIProcate control[1] file, I included the following:
>
> Build-Depends: ... , libssl-dev (<< 1.1) | libssl1.0-dev (>= 1.0.0), ...
>
> pdebuild correctly builds it for sid with libssl1.0-dev from openssl1.0[2]
>
> In the buildd[3] report, it
Daniel Pocock writes:
> In my reSIProcate control[1] file, I included the following:
>
>
> Build-Depends: ... , libssl-dev (<< 1.1) | libssl1.0-dev (>= 1.0.0), ...
>
>
> pdebuild correctly builds it for sid with libssl1.0-dev from openssl1.0[2]
>
> In the buildd[3] report, it says that libssl-dev
17 matches
Mail list logo
