Hello, Pierre-Elliott Bécue, le mer. 15 août 2018 15:47:36 +0200, a ecrit: > So I found a way to build locally, using your suggestions. In my case I > guess I could upload directly the output of the nocheck build as the bin > package isn't altered.
Yes, but better request a binnmu after the upload, to be sure. > But how should I handle the upload in the archive in a general case? Let's > imagine my profile produces a different bin package, eg if foo -> bar (for > specific foo functionalities) -> foo, so with a stage1 foo, then a stage1 > bar and then a stage2 foo, how should I proceed? Do all the builds locally > and upload the packages obtained from the last build? AIUI it is usually preferred to upload as few manually-built packages as possible, and thus you'd upload stage1 foo, let bar be built, and request a binmu for stage2 foo. > On the other hand, let's assume one wants to do a sourceful upload, and not > upload the .deb files (I know this is not possible when one introduces a new > package in the archive), then the buildd farm couldn't succeed because the > nocheck wouldn't be taken into account. So this means profile builds > systematically require source + binary upload? If the profile-specific build really is needed, yes. In practice, once the loop is broken it's not needed since you already have a stage1 bar to build with and so you can just let builds happen. It's then only for new archs that a bootstrap is needed (and keeping the profile available for doing it is really useful for porters to just do it themselves). Samuel
