Re: debian-policy: please document build profiles
Johannes Schauer writes ("Re: debian-policy: please document build profiles"):
> One way to solve this, would be to change the build profile spec to
> say that the Built-For-Profiles field is only to be added if either
> one of the following build profiles was active during the build:
>
> - pkg.$sourcepackage.$anything
> - stage1
> - stage2
> - nodoc
>
> Though I'm not sure whether keeping this static list in dpkg would
> be very smart. One way to avoid having to keep a list of "dirty"
> build profiles in dpkg would be to extend the requirement of
> producing identical binary packages to all profile names. I can see
> how this would make using above four profiles more inconvenient. I
> just still see the temptation of abusing above profile names in ways
> that breaks dependency resolvers.
The build profile namespace could be divided up, with existing
extensions grandfathered. For example, dirty profiles could start
with a capital letter, or something.
> I'm also wondering why keeping the content of the field directly in
> the binary package is necessary in the first place. Is it to be able
> to debug problems with the binary package later on? We are already
> throwing away other useful information about how the binary package
> was built like:
If the binary package is built with a dirty build profile I think it
is important that this is noted in the .deb. That will make it much
easier to guard against (and spot) problems where such a .deb is used
out of its intended context.
Ian.
Re: debian-policy: please document build profiles
> Quoting Javier Serrano Polo (2016-07-10 19:25:59) > > There is an introduction at https://bugs.debian.org/830524 . The goal is > > to build a subset of binary packages. For instance, the linux source > > package should have a way to build only linux-image-4.6.0-1-686 (profile > > pkg.linux.686), only linux-image-4.6.0-1-rt-686-pae (profile > > pkg.linux.rt-686-pae), etc. The nodebug profile would be useful to not > > build *-dbg packages. > ... > It seems that you want to build *single* binary packages only? Why? > Is there a reduction in compilation time that you want for debugging > and testing purposes? Certainly it is very annoying that building src:linux takes a very long time even if only a small subset of its outputs are wanted. This is not relevant only for debugging, but can also be relevant for tasks like security response: if I want to locally apply an emergency fix for a 0day I would like to do it ASAP, with a build only for my running kernel(s), without having to wait for lots of other flavours to build. But is this goal really best achieved with build profiles ? Perhaps a better answer would be a build option or other env var passed through dpkg-buildpackage. That is, an entirely generic option, which affects all builds, and says "build only these binary packages". With that, * dpkg-genchanges could avoid including extranous .debs even if the source package needlessly builds them * no problems with build profile cleanness arise * there is no need to try to encode binary package patterns in build profile names (which is not really how the build profile system is supposed to be used) * actually not doing unecessary work becomes an optimisation Ian.
Attention Javier Serrano Polo (was Re: Mail delivery failed: returning message to sender)
If someone who can email Javier could pass this on, I'd appreciate it.
Mail Delivery System writes ("Mail delivery failed: returning message to
sender"):
> This message was created automatically by mail delivery software.
>
> A message that you sent could not be delivered to one or more of its
> recipients. This is a permanent error. The following address(es) failed:
>
> jav...@jasp.net
> SMTP error from remote mail server after end of data:
> host www.jasp.net [62.43.138.54]: 550-The message does not meet the trust
> level of one recipient at least
> 550-See http://www.jasp.net/smtp/trust.xhtml
> 550 Administrative prohibition
> javier--7c8frosbhwv6hrgym4mlhjbycgp...@jasp.net
> SMTP error from remote mail server after end of data:
> host www.jasp.net [62.43.138.54]: 550-The message does not meet the trust
> level of one recipient at least
> 550-See http://www.jasp.net/smtp/trust.xhtml
> 550 Administrative prohibition
This after I did "reply all" to a message on debian-dpkg.
I'm not aware of anything wrong at my end, but I can't rule it out,
obviously.
Ian.
Re: debian-policy: please document build profiles
Ian Jackson (2016-07-13): > Certainly it is very annoying that building src:linux takes a very > long time even if only a small subset of its outputs are wanted. This > is not relevant only for debugging, but can also be relevant for tasks > like security response: if I want to locally apply an emergency fix > for a 0day I would like to do it ASAP, with a build only for my > running kernel(s), without having to wait for lots of other flavours > to build. > > But is this goal really best achieved with build profiles ? > > Perhaps a better answer would be a build option or other env var > passed through dpkg-buildpackage. That is, an entirely generic > option, which affects all builds, and says "build only these binary > packages". > > With that, > * dpkg-genchanges could avoid including extranous .debs even if > the source package needlessly builds them > * no problems with build profile cleanness arise > * there is no need to try to encode binary package patterns in > build profile names (which is not really how the build profile > system is supposed to be used) > * actually not doing unecessary work becomes an optimisation FWIW, src:linux already lets you configure a specific flavour and build only that one: https://kernel-handbook.alioth.debian.org/ch-common-tasks.html#s4.2.5 Yeah, that's outside of the usual dpkg-buildpackage routine but that answers your use case without the need for any build profile tricks. KiBi. signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: debian-policy: please document build profiles
Cyril Brulebois writes ("Re: debian-policy: please document build profiles"):
> FWIW, src:linux already lets you configure a specific flavour and build
> only that one:
> https://kernel-handbook.alioth.debian.org/ch-common-tasks.html#s4.2.5
Oh, cool, I didn't know about that.
> Yeah, that's outside of the usual dpkg-buildpackage routine but that
> answers your use case without the need for any build profile tricks.
Indeed.
It would be nice to have a standardised way to ask for this...
Ian.
(PS: Javier: If you read this, I'm having trouble mailing you. Please
get in touch. Ask postmaster@chiark if ijackson@chiark doesn't work.)
Re: Attention Javier Serrano Polo (was Re: Mail delivery failed: returning message to sender)
Hi,
Quoting Ian Jackson (2016-07-13 14:59:17)
> If someone who can email Javier could pass this on, I'd appreciate it.
>
> Mail Delivery System writes ("Mail delivery failed: returning message to
> sender"):
> > This message was created automatically by mail delivery software.
> >
> > A message that you sent could not be delivered to one or more of its
> > recipients. This is a permanent error. The following address(es) failed:
> >
> > jav...@jasp.net
> > SMTP error from remote mail server after end of data:
> > host www.jasp.net [62.43.138.54]: 550-The message does not meet the
> > trust level of one recipient at least
> > 550-See http://www.jasp.net/smtp/trust.xhtml
> > 550 Administrative prohibition
> > javier--7c8frosbhwv6hrgym4mlhjbycgp...@jasp.net
> > SMTP error from remote mail server after end of data:
> > host www.jasp.net [62.43.138.54]: 550-The message does not meet the
> > trust level of one recipient at least
> > 550-See http://www.jasp.net/smtp/trust.xhtml
> > 550 Administrative prohibition
>
> This after I did "reply all" to a message on debian-dpkg.
>
> I'm not aware of anything wrong at my end, but I can't rule it out,
> obviously.
if anything is wrong on your end, then I am having the same problem when trying
to send them stuff using my own mailserver. I'm getting the same message as you
do.
I notified Javier about this via bug #757760 that I knew they were reading.
Thanks!
cheers, josch
signature.asc
Description: signature
Cómo Exportar en la Venezuela de Hoy, Es Posible ?
[1] web [2] nuestros servicios forum [3] contacto servicios ofrecidos transmaquina transporte de carga y alquiler de maquinaria estimados srs. quedamos a sus ordenes como proveedores serios y motivados a prestarles un excelente servicio en toda venezuela. en caso de necesitar servicios de: transporte de carga alquiler de maquinaria de construcción alquiler de grúas telescopicas tansporte de carga extradimensionada transporte de cemento a granel reciban un cordial saludo, luis arriaga gerente comercial [4] ven...@transmaquina.com.ve 0424-1362899 [5] www.transmaquina.com.ve [6] visitar página web información adicional cobertura geográfica prestamos servicios en toda venezuela , ya que trabajamos como aliados en las principales ciudades del país. venta de equipos prestamos el servicio de venta de equipos. nos encargamos de publicidad de venta de camiones, gandolas, maquinaria, grúas y montacargas. este mensaje fue enviado a t...@test.com por gerencia comercial - luis arriaga caracas, miranda, venezuela, caracas, miranda 1070, venezuela cancelar suscripción| administre su suscripción| remitir email| reportar abuso References: 1. u=5f04de7 2. u=5f04de7 3. u=5f04de9 4. mailto:ven...@transmaquina.com.ve 5. u=5f04dea 6. u=5f04deb This message was sent to debian-dpkg@lists.debian.org by ventadeequip...@transmaquina.com.ve You can modify/update your subscription via the link below. Unsubscribe from all mailings http://benchemail.bmetrack.com/c/su?e=9B58DF&c=717D3&l=F60F9D0&email=El7Ga46avTHOD5IJq75m%2FgODfNw3Y4%2FbUKEtWoQMMiA%3D&relid=D897DD9A Manage Subscription http://benchemail.bmetrack.com/c/s?e=9B58DF&c=717D3&l=F60F9D0&email=El7Ga46avTHOD5IJq75m%2FgODfNw3Y4%2FbUKEtWoQMMiA%3D&relid=D897DD9A Forward Email http://benchemail.bmetrack.com/c/f?e=9B58DF&c=717D3&l=F60F9D0&email=El7Ga46avTHOD5IJq75m%2FgODfNw3Y4%2FbUKEtWoQMMiA%3D&relid=D897DD9A Report Abuse http://benchemail.bmetrack.com/Abuse?e=9B58DF&c=717D3&l=F60F9D0&email=El7Ga46avTHOD5IJq75m%2FgODfNw3Y4%2FbUKEtWoQMMiA%3D&relid=D897DD9A Caracas, Miranda, Venezuela, Caracas, Miranda 1070, Venezuela Email Marketing BenchmarkEmail.com [http://benchemail.bmetrack.com]
Processing of debsig-verify_0.15_amd64.changes
Upload to ftp-master.debian.org failed Error messages: Entering Passive Mode (138,16,160,12,23,213). The upload will be retried in 0:30:00 Greetings, Your Debian queue daemon (running on host coccia.debian.org)
Processing of debsig-verify_0.15_amd64.changes
debsig-verify_0.15_amd64.changes uploaded successfully to ftp-master.debian.org along with the files: debsig-verify_0.15.dsc debsig-verify_0.15.tar.xz Greetings, Your Debian queue daemon (running on host coccia.debian.org)
Processing of debsig-verify_0.15_amd64.changes
debsig-verify_0.15_amd64.changes uploaded successfully to localhost along with the files: debsig-verify_0.15.dsc debsig-verify_0.15.tar.xz Greetings, Your Debian queue daemon (running on host franck.debian.org)
debsig-verify_0.15_amd64.changes ACCEPTED into unstable
Accepted: -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA512 Format: 1.8 Date: Thu, 14 Jul 2016 00:45:33 +0200 Source: debsig-verify Binary: debsig-verify Architecture: source Version: 0.15 Distribution: unstable Urgency: medium Maintainer: Dpkg Developers Changed-By: Guillem Jover Description: debsig-verify - Debian package signature verification tool Changes: debsig-verify (0.15) unstable; urgency=medium . * Fix typo in error message, reported by lintian. * Fix typo in man page, reported by lintian. * Bump Standard-Version to 3.9.8 (no changes needed). * Use https for debsig policy DTD. * Fix coding style. * Switch to the dpkg makefile fragments in debian/rules. * Enable all hardening flags. * Switch to use the new libdpkg 1.18.8 ar API. * Fix parsing of GnuPG 2.x --list-packets output. * Move debian/copyright paragraph referencing GPL-2 file to a Comment field. * Make configure.ac a dependency of the configure target in debian/rules. * Fix test suite with GnuPG 2.x. Checksums-Sha1: 11e10b8b189da717adb6fd83737dc647e5f26985 1658 debsig-verify_0.15.dsc 97188755e785b39301a49ca07aca48d628e06467 127656 debsig-verify_0.15.tar.xz Checksums-Sha256: 6b2cb64d478ca77fecf7c6bc0072ec7d3c65670fb4ae8bd63c23147c74c46b67 1658 debsig-verify_0.15.dsc 9b0d498f99ef08bd45a3e1c2b5469aa316d31ace3da414add0b6120041a95087 127656 debsig-verify_0.15.tar.xz Files: 0dbf498d650138134d238dde1c44b87e 1658 admin optional debsig-verify_0.15.dsc 0fe51be5863249e2472e326e6e8fe529 127656 admin optional debsig-verify_0.15.tar.xz -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v2 iQIcBAEBCgAGBQJXhssVAAoJELlyvz6krlejCWsQAKlckuf+BY+BNZcyiLUH6yi7 yTUGG/Vt4ucyoeTa/Qi9yiIORToERM7Oe6ywmLMgR8hM3hi57dlo0xM5zHu8hlGI KeJxWqu4fLcrLItO5Oseq/VDnj6uBLEodN47aZ1++UbIXg8gLgWiyHTCK2fYtogz b+EV7RYEh6dWyDO36ESIVJTNUmj32Y2fpSrekBb3BD4csxvTXnOzhoq7m6yQZDQI 5tZjgcKj44JmwEKkWeW9rP2Iw+IbMtXMVYIzysjegGKDiCzywUTC6xqCT2kbo4gN JOJu3suvGyOy7bn6E4hF13RrA0xZl7l3JSk3MKDi255sipHLWz/riQFwD3b95y0X h0enbr2/Np1yB4i7MjDEv45MML2A9z8IbmaZjHnpt+DhEtgCKfYqEFZ3ahg/KU82 JGKbVIoMwUvPWda1Ews3Vnyelg+7iIK2WCrSFYx2xyYhpzAr1E06aNjO+9QQ+wQf /6sE2YYqeSjatDUkQ2VHDyvULY4wphd0Uv0+EQlBH/2t0eZqWXiJxc+ZEWCGkpZs 7HDPsSYvgbZojbXam9tAcF2UHXrqAPb4h7geUKOn6v25iYphbi691CpIuH0ZC+tK H4DeJoyqFA+ZA2LiUadToAmfR5cbkNvE9T8vah+jfvD4R6Awjx7SVp2jsRrgBBKI 5La+0cWDxW+cDDuDmvcJ =T6jD -END PGP SIGNATURE- Thank you for your contribution to Debian.
