On Sun, May 05, 2013 at 04:30:05AM +0200, Lucas Nussbaum wrote: > On 05/05/13 at 03:06 +0200, Adam Borowski wrote: > > On Sun, May 05, 2013 at 10:00:07AM +0900, Charles Plessy wrote: > > > Anyway, given that our infrastructure builds binary packages from a fresh > > > unpacked source package, I would prefer if we keep the compromise that > > > imperfect "clean" targets are not release-critical problems. > > > > Note that for a big majority of packages, double builds work just fine. > > [citation needed] :) > > > In fact, that's most of what "make" is for: coping with partially > > complete trees. > > I think that it depends on what kind of double-builds you are > talking about. For binary-only builds, I agree with you. But if you try > to rebuild the source package after a binary build, I'm quite sure that > a large number of packages will fail to build.
Yeah, I meant binary-only builds. That's where partial builds are important -- only C/C++ code will be ccached. I agree with Charles that for source builds, the "clean" target is often duplicating work that could be better done by git. Yeah, 3.0 (git) would solve this nicely. -- ᛊᚨᚾᛁᛏᚣ᛫ᛁᛊ᛫ᚠᛟᚱ᛫ᚦᛖ᛫ᚹᛖᚨᚲ -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/20130505212153.gb16...@angband.pl
