Re: Building a build environment
On Wed, Jul 30, 2008 at 10:04:35AM +1000, Ben Finney wrote: > Richard Hurt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: *SKIP* > > Also, the wide array of tools available to me is pretty > > overwhelming. pBuilder, cowbuilder, cowdancer, quilt, etc... The > > list is quite long and I'm not sure which one is old, new, mature, > > good or bad. Does anyone have any advice for a newbie packager that > > just wants a simple setup that works? What do you use? > > The Developer's Reference and New Maintainer's Guide should be your > first port of call. Read them thoroughly and become familiar with > them; they have much advice on tools and procedures. [To: OP] I would like to stress on that point. You *must* be familiar with Debian internals, with ways Debian builds from source, with Debian BTS. When something will go wrong, you'll be on your own. -- Torvalds' goal for Linux is very simple: World Domination -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Please clarify: to bugreport or not bugreport
Just for the record; I routinely build packages from debian source (that's my way to testing). Each build starts from minimal environment (dpkg, apt, build-essential, their dependencies); then Build-Depends is satisfied and build goes on. I suppose that either environment on build-machines where binaries for Debian are built is not that minimal or Build-Depends is satisfied not that blindly. Hence the problem; Sometimes I FTBFS some package -- because Build-Depends either misses some package or lacks explicitly set relation. FTBFS itself doesn't make problem for me (each time I'd managed to figure out a block and workaround it manually). I still can't decide -- should (would? could?) I bugreport this? Look, I admit that I build unusual way. Maybe it's not the problem? (I've solved that twice today, that's why I post.) -- Torvalds' goal for Linux is very simple: World Domination -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Please clarify: to bugreport or not bugreport
On Tue, Nov 11, 2008 at 11:50:27AM +0100, Cyril Brulebois wrote: > Paul Wise <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> (02/11/2008): > > If the build-deps are satisfied and build-essential is installed, the > > package should build, so yeah, file bugs at severity serious please. > > For reference: > > Do folks think #505040 is RC or should at least be >fixed for lenny? > KiBi: nope, the package in etch builds in etch, the one >in lenny builds in lenny, so it's not considered RC, though >fixing it won't harm I'd been surprised that I should be C. Should it be C? (just for the record, I'm going to bugreport B.) -- Torvalds' goal for Linux is very simple: World Domination -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Using pbuilder to test packages with gcc-snapshot
On Thu, Nov 13, 2008 at 08:19:38PM -0600, Kumar Appaiah wrote: > Dear Debian Mentors, *SKIP* > 1. Is there a way to set an arbitrary environment variable while >running pbuilder (in my case, LD_LIBRARY_PATH). Try adding C in pbuilderrc (whatever is effective in your installation). If my understanding of pbuilder isn't outdated the effective pbuilderrc is sourced in chroot context. *CUT* -- Torvalds' goal for Linux is very simple: World Domination -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: pdebuild, not removing build environment
On Fri, Apr 10, 2009 at 12:36:50AM +0800, Chow Loong Jin wrote: > On Thu, 2009-04-09 at 18:21 +0200, أحمد المحمودي wrote: > > On Thu, Apr 09, 2009 at 04:51:35PM +0200, Gudjon I. Gudjonsson wrote: > > > Sorry if I have missed something obvious but, in case of error during > > > build. How can I keep the pbuilder environment when I use pdebuild. I > > > don't > > > want pdebuild to remove the chroot environment after the error occurs. > > ---end quoted text--- > > > > Well, the only method that I know is do a pbuilder login, then I build > > the package (after manually apt-get'ing its Build-Deps), so: > > > > $ pbuilder login > > # apt-get install > > # dpkg-source -x .dsc > > # cd > > # ./debian/rules build (or whatever) > > A hook would save you all that trouble. I have a hook called C00Bash > which looks like this: > 8<= > #!/bin/sh > exec bash > >8= > > After a build (only if there's a failure), it'll drop to a Bash prompt > within the chroot, whereby you can head to /tmp/buildd/ and examine why > things went the way they did. (just my 2cent) Someone interested could develop a hook that after looking for parent processes (it should go far enough) just would kill pbuilder. This must be SIGKILL; otherwise the signal could be trapped. p.s I'm not interested -- so I'm not that someone. -- Torvalds' goal for Linux is very simple: World Domination Stallman's goal for GNU is even simpler: Freedom -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-mentors-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Re: pdebuild, not removing build environment
On Fri, Apr 10, 2009 at 10:14:07AM +, Chow Loong Jin wrote: > On Fri, 2009-04-10 at 11:39 +0300, Eric Pozharski wrote: > > On Fri, Apr 10, 2009 at 12:36:50AM +0800, Chow Loong Jin wrote: > > > On Thu, 2009-04-09 at 18:21 +0200, أحمد المحمودي wrote: > > > > On Thu, Apr 09, 2009 at 04:51:35PM +0200, Gudjon I. Gudjonsson wrote: > > > > > Sorry if I have missed something obvious but, in case of error > > > > > during > > > > > build. How can I keep the pbuilder environment when I use pdebuild. I > > > > > don't > > > > > want pdebuild to remove the chroot environment after the error occurs. > > > > ---end quoted text--- > > > > > > > > Well, the only method that I know is do a pbuilder login, then I > > > > build > > > > the package (after manually apt-get'ing its Build-Deps), so: > > > > > > > > $ pbuilder login > > > > # apt-get install > > > > # dpkg-source -x .dsc > > > > # cd > > > > # ./debian/rules build (or whatever) > > > > > > A hook would save you all that trouble. I have a hook called C00Bash > > > which looks like this: > > > 8<= > > > #!/bin/sh > > > exec bash > > > >8= > > > > > > After a build (only if there's a failure), it'll drop to a Bash prompt > > > within the chroot, whereby you can head to /tmp/buildd/ and examine why > > > things went the way they did. > > > > (just my 2cent) Someone interested could develop a hook that after > > looking for parent processes (it should go far enough) just would kill > > pbuilder. This must be SIGKILL; otherwise the signal could be trapped. > > > > p.s I'm not interested -- so I'm not that someone. > > > Just replace "exec bash" with "killall -9 pbuilder". But seriously it's > pointless. If you keep the Bash prompt from that hook I posted earlier > open, you can poke around inside the chroot, and if you wish, you could > do the killing of pbuilder yourself, as it'll wait for you to close that > prompt. Exactly. But OP wanted to keep tree (for unknown reason). -- Torvalds' goal for Linux is very simple: World Domination Stallman's goal for GNU is even simpler: Freedom -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-mentors-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
