> >> In late 2001, I spent several weekends hand-building quite a large
> >> chunk of woody (over 200 source packages). I found quite a number of
> >> serious bug in several packages, including missing Build-Deps, and, in
I've spent most of 2002 rebuilding packages from source.
Looking back, a
George Danchev <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> p.s. why Apt-Fu ? Is that 'APT Kung-Fu' or what ? Hmm, after apt-src,
> apt-build, and similar 'build that debian source package' tools, I've been
> expecting for 'apt-too' ;-)
FWIW, the `fu' in kung-fu means something like style or technique, so
apt
On Tuesday 09 December 2003 12:20, Eric Wong wrote:
> Eric Wong <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
--cut--
> > OK, I'll do my best to have all the changes you requested done and
> > tested by tomorrow. Let me know if you have any other feature requests
> > and/or bug reports.
First of all, thank you ve
Matt Zimmerman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Tue, Dec 09, 2003 at 09:52:39AM +1100, Herbert Xu wrote:
>
> > Matt Zimmerman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > >
> > > There are quite a few, but make is a bad example, as it has included a
> > > shell script to build itself for just this purpose.
>
On Tue, Dec 09, 2003 at 08:54:45AM -0500, Anthony DeRobertis wrote:
>
> On Dec 8, 2003, at 11:48, Matt Zimmerman wrote:
>
> >On Sun, Dec 07, 2003 at 04:10:36PM +, Scott James Remnant wrote:
> >
> >>make? You'll need make installed to make make. There are a huge
> >>number
> >>of legitimat
On Dec 8, 2003, at 11:48, Matt Zimmerman wrote:
On Sun, Dec 07, 2003 at 04:10:36PM +, Scott James Remnant wrote:
make? You'll need make installed to make make. There are a huge
number
of legitimate circular build dependencies, outlawing them won't help.
There are quite a few, but make is a b
Eric Wong <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> John Goerzen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > On Fri, Dec 05, 2003 at 05:48:21PM -0800, Eric Wong wrote:
> > I have one feature request: I'd like to have an option so that I can ask
> > it to rebuild arch-indep packages just like it rebuilds other packages.
> >
On Mon, Dec 08, 2003 at 06:47:44PM -0500, Matt Zimmerman wrote:
> Yes, but building the complete Debian package is hopefully not necessary for
> bootstrapping purposes, only to get a working make binary.
So it would be wort to look at the LFS scripts, to get a minimum system boot
strapped.
On th
On Tue, Dec 09, 2003 at 09:52:39AM +1100, Herbert Xu wrote:
> Matt Zimmerman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> > There are quite a few, but make is a bad example, as it has included a
> > shell script to build itself for just this purpose.
>
> But its debian/rules is a makefile since the policy r
Matt Zimmerman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> There are quite a few, but make is a bad example, as it has included a
> shell script to build itself for just this purpose.
But its debian/rules is a makefile since the policy requires it
to be so, right? :)
--
Debian GNU/Linux 3.0 is out! ( http://
On Sun, Dec 07, 2003 at 04:10:36PM +, Scott James Remnant wrote:
> make? You'll need make installed to make make. There are a huge number
> of legitimate circular build dependencies, outlawing them won't help.
There are quite a few, but make is a bad example, as it has included a
shell scri
Scott James Remnant <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Sat, 2003-12-06 at 20:59, John Goerzen wrote:
>
> > On Sat, Dec 06, 2003 at 09:31:54PM +0200, Antti-Juhani Kaijanaho wrote:
> > > For example, every self-hosting compiler build-depends on itself
> > > (many of them can be bootstrapped, but I'm
On Sat, 2003-12-06 at 20:59, John Goerzen wrote:
> On Sat, Dec 06, 2003 at 09:31:54PM +0200, Antti-Juhani Kaijanaho wrote:
> > For example, every self-hosting compiler build-depends on itself
> > (many of them can be bootstrapped, but I'm not sure we want to require
> > bootstrapping on every buil
On 20031206T145904-0600, John Goerzen wrote:
> Obviously gcc is the #1 example of this. However, gcc packages should
> not need to depend on themselves; in our distribution, we tend to have
> many different versions of gcc available, and any of them should be able
> to build a newer gcc.
Neverthe
On Friday 05 December 2003 08:03 pm, Goswin von Brederlow wrote:
> John Goerzen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
[snip]
> > In other words, at no time would a .deb be downloaded. All .debs would
> > be built locally and installed locally.
I did on-target-system builds of personal backports for quite a
Roger Leigh <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Goswin von Brederlow <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > Roger Leigh <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> >> This sort of automated source building is a very good idea--it will
> >> root out a lot of build bugs, and will improve the quality of Debian.
> >
> > That
John Goerzen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Fri, Dec 05, 2003 at 05:48:21PM -0800, Eric Wong wrote:
> > apt-fu src-dist-upgrade
>
> Excellent work! *This* is what I have been searching for. Plus, it
> seems to actually work! :-)
Cool, probably the best compliment I've received so far :)
> I h
Adam Heath <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Sat, 6 Dec 2003, Roger Leigh wrote:
>
>> In late 2001, I spent several weekends hand-building quite a large
>> chunk of woody (over 200 source packages). I found quite a number of
>> serious bug in several packages, including missing Build-Deps, and, in
Goswin von Brederlow <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Roger Leigh <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
>> John Goerzen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>>
>> >> apt-fu installs binary packages of build-depends first to avoid circular
>> >> build-dependencies, and then builds and installs the build-depends from
On Sat, Dec 06, 2003 at 09:31:54PM +0200, Antti-Juhani Kaijanaho wrote:
> For example, every self-hosting compiler build-depends on itself
> (many of them can be bootstrapped, but I'm not sure we want to require
> bootstrapping on every build - and some require manual bootstrapping
> work).
Obviou
On Sat, 6 Dec 2003, Roger Leigh wrote:
> In late 2001, I spent several weekends hand-building quite a large
> chunk of woody (over 200 source packages). I found quite a number of
> serious bug in several packages, including missing Build-Deps, and, in
> the case of (IIRC) Tcl 8.x, it wouldn't bui
Roger Leigh <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> John Goerzen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> >> apt-fu installs binary packages of build-depends first to avoid circular
> >> build-dependencies, and then builds and installs the build-depends from
> >> source if -R is specified. It's a nasty problem but
On 20031206T085705-0600, John Goerzen wrote:
> Yeah, I have found some of those circular build-deps. I believe they
> should be considered serious bugs if they aren't already. That's just
> wrong.
There are several good reasons for circular build-time dependencies.
For example, every self-hostin
John Goerzen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> apt-fu installs binary packages of build-depends first to avoid circular
>> build-dependencies, and then builds and installs the build-depends from
>> source if -R is specified. It's a nasty problem but you can't have the
>> chicken without the egg, nor
On Fri, Dec 05, 2003 at 05:48:21PM -0800, Eric Wong wrote:
> apt-fu src-dist-upgrade
Excellent work! *This* is what I have been searching for. Plus, it
seems to actually work! :-)
I have one feature request: I'd like to have an option so that I can ask
it to rebuild arch-indep packages just lik
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 2003-12-05 21:02, Matt Zimmerman wrote:
> On Fri, Dec 05, 2003 at 01:53:11PM -0600, John Goerzen wrote:
> > The nearest I have seen is fink, but I know little about it.
> >
> > Am I missing something?
>
> apt-src, apparently.
take a look at apt-bui
John Goerzen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Hello,
>
> For various reasons [1], I am interested in building Debian from source
> -- and continuing to do so for upgrades and newly-installed packages.
>
> What I'm after is basically something where I can say:
>
> apt-foo install kde
>
> The sys
John Goerzen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Hello,
>
> For various reasons [1], I am interested in building Debian from source
> -- and continuing to do so for upgrades and newly-installed packages.
>
> What I'm after is basically something where I can say:
>
> apt-foo install kde
Close enough
On Fri, Dec 05, 2003 at 03:02:29PM -0500, Matt Zimmerman wrote:
> On Fri, Dec 05, 2003 at 01:53:11PM -0600, John Goerzen wrote:
>
> > The nearest I have seen is fink, but I know little about it.
> >
> > Am I missing something?
>
> apt-src, apparently.
Well, not really. apt-src doesn't integrat
On Fri, Dec 05, 2003 at 01:53:11PM -0600, John Goerzen wrote:
> The nearest I have seen is fink, but I know little about it.
>
> Am I missing something?
apt-src, apparently.
--
- mdz
Hello,
For various reasons [1], I am interested in building Debian from source
-- and continuing to do so for upgrades and newly-installed packages.
What I'm after is basically something where I can say:
apt-foo install kde
The system will then:
1. Look at kde and build/install any of its b
31 matches
Mail list logo
