On Sun, Sep 09, 2007 at 11:26:14AM +0400, Sergei Golovan wrote: > > > Should this be treated as a bug in buildd configuration or package > > > maintainers should take into account the possibility of so unusual > > > HOME behavior?
> > It's a bug in your package. Packages should not rely on anything in $HOME > > for building, and should definitely not write anything to $HOME, as packages > > are not supposed to modify anything outside of the build directory during > > build. > It would be sufficient (for this particular package) to point HOME to > a truly unexistent directory. Is there a reason why /unexistent exists > in buildd chroot? Because one of the other buggy packages that messes with $HOME, and with which your package has to share a build environment on the buildds, created it. (So in a sense, yes, this is a bug in the build environment too, but your package still has a bug.) > But OK, I'll try to fix the package (setting HOME inside debian/rules > should help). Yep. > > The reason the mipsel buildd has a non-writable home is precisely because it > > previously /did/ have a writable home, and various packages would in the > > process of building pollute it with contents that would break subsequent > > package builds. This way, all packages that depend on reading from /or/ > > writing to $HOME break equally. > So, mipsel buildd is a test station for HOME related bugs? No, the HOME=/nonexistent setting is there to in theory control the kinds of HOME-related bugs that occur. -- Steve Langasek Give me a lever long enough and a Free OS Debian Developer to set it on, and I can move the world. [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.debian.org/ -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
