Hi, Am Samstag, den 25.09.2010, 17:04 +0200 schrieb Adam Borowski: > On Sat, Sep 25, 2010 at 03:03:51PM +0200, Joachim Breitner wrote: > > > Uhm, but shouldn't that massive multi-hour _building_ of data be in a > > > "build" (specifically, "build-indep") target rather than "install"? > > > > one would expect that it works this way, any many people before you were > > surprised by this fact. The problem is that build-indep and build-arch > > are not required targets, and there is no easy way of checking whether > > they exist. > > Oh, right. That's indeed nasty. > > I've skimmed through discussions about this matter, and the problem seems to > be that make does not provide a way to tell why it failed -- so it's not > possible to tell if the "build-indep" target exists. > > Except, make does give an unique error message. It may differ in various > versions of make or locales, but at least for GNU make (which we do require) > it's always different from anything else that can go wrong.
I’m still not convinced why we could not (after a release) just make it required, fix packages using cdbs or dh7 centrally, wait for half a year (while filing bugs etc.), then make the the buildds start calling build-indep and NMU the remaining failing packages. But a script like yours could indeed help to reduce the fallout. Greetings, Joachim -- Joachim "nomeata" Breitner Debian Developer nome...@debian.org | ICQ# 74513189 | GPG-Keyid: 4743206C JID: nome...@joachim-breitner.de | http://people.debian.org/~nomeata
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
