On Tue, Feb 02, 2010 at 07:59:53AM +0100, Lucas Nussbaum wrote:
> On 02/02/10 at 01:07 +0100, Wouter Verhelst wrote:
> > At any rate, here are some facts:
> > - A package that builds differently because something is (or is not)
> > installed on the build system is buggy. Period. It has nothing to
On 02/02/10 at 01:07 +0100, Wouter Verhelst wrote:
> At any rate, here are some facts:
> - A package that builds differently because something is (or is not)
> installed on the build system is buggy. Period. It has nothing to do
> with the build system, it's the package.
... but I question tha
On Wed, Jan 20, 2010 at 10:37:48PM +1300, Lucas Nussbaum wrote:
> On 20/01/10 at 00:48 -0800, Steve Langasek wrote:
> > On Wed, Jan 20, 2010 at 02:22:33PM +1300, Lucas Nussbaum wrote:
> >
> > > Why spend a lot of time on tasks that provide little benefit, and also
> > > some disadvantages (in some
On Tue, Jan 19, 2010 at 03:40:22PM -0800, Russ Allbery wrote:
> Lucas Nussbaum writes:
> > On 19/01/10 at 14:36 -0800, Russ Allbery wrote:
>
> >> Well, I would argue that proper package builds in dirty environments is
> >> something we want in Debian anyway, and while this isn't the ideal
> >> me
Patrick Schoenfeld writes:
> On Wed, Jan 20, 2010 at 10:30:13AM -0800, Russ Allbery wrote:
>>> That does not mean that we shouldn't fix such bugs if they arise
>>> (obviously we should) but having priority on it is a different thing.
>> Then I'm not sure that you're disagreeing with me?
> Oh I
On Wed, Jan 20, 2010 at 10:30:13AM -0800, Russ Allbery wrote:
> > That does not mean that we shouldn't fix such bugs if they arise
> > (obviously we should) but having priority on it is a different thing.
>
> Then I'm not sure that you're disagreeing with me?
Oh I don't. However in one of your fi
Patrick Schoenfeld writes:
> On Tue, Jan 19, 2010 at 04:04:07PM -0800, Russ Allbery wrote:
>> Uh, since as long as I've been part of the project. I think this is at
>> least the third time that I recall the same topic coming up on -devel.
> Wow. How often a topic comes up on -devel is an indica
On Wed, Jan 20, 2010 at 04:15:26PM +0100, Fabian Greffrath wrote:
Ahh, problem isolated: The proper option to use is
--with-openssl-dir=no - so the convenient DEB_BUILD_OPTIONS=openssl
will be preserved :-)
Sure?!
Nope. I went offline (train ride to Copenhagen an hour from my home)
where I
Ahh, problem isolated: The proper option to use is
--with-openssl-dir=no - so the convenient DEB_BUILD_OPTIONS=openssl
will be preserved :-)
Sure?!
# ./configure --with-openssl-dir=no|grep -i ssl
checking for SSL... /usr (enabling RANDNUM and DHX support)
SSL:
CFLAGS = -I/usr/inclu
* Lucas Nussbaum [100120 01:26]:
> There are two ways to attack that problem:
>
> (1) We decide that we want to provide the guarantee that packages
> build the correct way in unclean envs. That mean making such bugs RC,
> basically, and making efforts to find such bugs.
If you s/unclean/non-minim
tags 565969 pending
thanks
On Wed, Jan 20, 2010 at 11:15:23AM +0100, Jonas Smedegaard wrote:
On Wed, Jan 20, 2010 at 01:28:49AM -0800, Steve Langasek wrote:
On Wed, Jan 20, 2010 at 10:25:01AM +0100, Jonas Smedegaard wrote:
On Wed, Jan 20, 2010 at 09:55:35AM +0100, Fabian Greffrath wrote:
as r
On Wed, Jan 20, 2010 at 10:37:48PM +1300, Lucas Nussbaum wrote:
> > I'm not asking anyone to spend time on this task, but I still consider
> > missing build-conflicts a bug. Ignoring these bugs by insisting on clean
> > chroot environments for all official package builds is no solution - what if
>
Thank you for the additional information you have supplied regarding
this Bug report.
This is an automatically generated reply to let you know your message
has been received.
Your message is being forwarded to the package maintainers and other
interested parties for their attention; they will rep
On Wed, Jan 20, 2010 at 01:28:49AM -0800, Steve Langasek wrote:
On Wed, Jan 20, 2010 at 10:25:01AM +0100, Jonas Smedegaard wrote:
On Wed, Jan 20, 2010 at 09:55:35AM +0100, Fabian Greffrath wrote:
>as recently pointed out on debian-devel [1], the netatalk package
>is accidently linked against lib
On Wed, Jan 20, 2010 at 10:13:46PM +1300, Lucas Nussbaum wrote:
> What's the problem with documentation such as
> https://wiki.ubuntu.com/PbuilderHowto (except it's an Ubuntu
> documentation)? I think that the process of building with pbuilder is
> reasonably well documented.
Let's be realistic. W
On 20/01/10 at 09:30 +0100, Stefano Zacchiroli wrote:
> On Tue, Jan 19, 2010 at 03:40:22PM -0800, Russ Allbery wrote:
> > Because we want our users to be able to patch and rebuild our software to
> > suit their needs. Asking them to set up a chroot build environment is
> > asking quite a lot.
>
>
On 20/01/10 at 00:48 -0800, Steve Langasek wrote:
> On Wed, Jan 20, 2010 at 02:22:33PM +1300, Lucas Nussbaum wrote:
>
> > Why spend a lot of time on tasks that provide little benefit, and also
> > some disadvantages (in some cases, the fixes might be non-obvious, and
> > requires changes to the pa
On Tue, Jan 19, 2010 at 04:04:07PM -0800, Russ Allbery wrote:
> > hu? since when do we have a broader interest in people patching and
> > rebuilding packages? I know that there are *some* people interested in
> > that (me included) but I don't see that a broader audience wants to
> > support that.
On Wed, Jan 20, 2010 at 10:25:01AM +0100, Jonas Smedegaard wrote:
> On Wed, Jan 20, 2010 at 09:55:35AM +0100, Fabian Greffrath wrote:
> >as recently pointed out on debian-devel [1], the netatalk package
> >is accidently linked against libssl on some arches due to dirty
> >buildd chroots. To avoid t
On Tue, Jan 19, 2010 at 11:32:17PM +0100, Martin Zobel-Helas wrote:
> > Would it be time to start looking at LVM snapshops + sbuild perhaps?
>
> we already have two or three buildds doing that... The buildd team (esp.
> HE) working on that and if it works out to be stable enough, we can see
> if w
On Tue, Jan 19, 2010 at 02:36:08PM -0800, Russ Allbery wrote:
> Neil McGovern writes:
> > On Tue, Jan 19, 2010 at 11:59:35AM -0800, Russ Allbery wrote:
>
> >> This is a bug in the netatalk Debian packaging. You cannot assume the
> >> package will be built in a clean chroot; among other things, t
On Wed, Jan 20, 2010 at 09:55:35AM +0100, Fabian Greffrath wrote:
as recently pointed out on debian-devel [1], the netatalk package is
accidently linked against libssl on some arches due to dirty buildd
chroots. To avoid this license violation, explicit Build-Conflicts
against libssl-dev should
Package: netatalk
Version: 2.0.5-2
Severity: important
Holger Levsen:
how about the compromise and doing both, except that for (1) we file the bugs
with severity important?
Hi Jonas,
as recently pointed out on debian-devel [1], the netatalk package is
accidently linked against libssl on some
On Wed, Jan 20, 2010 at 02:22:33PM +1300, Lucas Nussbaum wrote:
> Why spend a lot of time on tasks that provide little benefit, and also
> some disadvantages (in some cases, the fixes might be non-obvious, and
> requires changes to the packaging that tend to obscure it, for example
> by using --di
On Tue, Jan 19, 2010 at 03:40:22PM -0800, Russ Allbery wrote:
> Because we want our users to be able to patch and rebuild our software to
> suit their needs. Asking them to set up a chroot build environment is
> asking quite a lot.
AOL. Yesterday night I drafted a reply (which has lingered in my
On 20/01/10 at 01:49 +0100, Holger Levsen wrote:
> On Mittwoch, 20. Januar 2010, Lucas Nussbaum wrote:
> > There are two ways to attack that problem:
>
> how about the compromise and doing both, except that for (1) we file the bugs
> with severity important?
There are a lot of more useful QA tas
Hi,
On Mittwoch, 20. Januar 2010, Lucas Nussbaum wrote:
> There are two ways to attack that problem:
how about the compromise and doing both, except that for (1) we file the bugs
with severity important?
cheers,
Holger
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message par
Lucas Nussbaum writes:
> On 19/01/10 at 16:04 -0800, Russ Allbery wrote:
People do occasionally test whether packages rebuild properly in
dirty environments and file bugs when they don't. Being absolutely
certain it will always work is, of course, hard, but I think fixing
the
On 19/01/10 at 16:04 -0800, Russ Allbery wrote:
> >> People do occasionally test whether packages rebuild properly in dirty
> >> environments and file bugs when they don't. Being absolutely certain it
> >> will always work is, of course, hard, but I think fixing the bug when we
> >> detect it is t
Patrick Schoenfeld writes:
> On Tue, Jan 19, 2010 at 03:40:22PM -0800, Russ Allbery wrote:
>> Because we want our users to be able to patch and rebuild our software
>> to suit their needs. Asking them to set up a chroot build environment
>> is asking quite a lot.
> hu? since when do we have a b
On Wed, Jan 20, 2010 at 00:48:15 +0100, Patrick Schoenfeld wrote:
> hu? since when do we have a broader interest in people patching
> and rebuilding packages? I know that there are *some* people interested
> in that (me included) but I don't see that a broader
> audience wants to support that.
>
Hi,
On Tue, Jan 19, 2010 at 03:40:22PM -0800, Russ Allbery wrote:
> > Why would we want that?
>
> > I mean, it's very difficult to guarantee that packages build correctly
> > in dirty envs. I don't really see the point of enforcing that when we
> > have the technology (pbuilder, sbuild + lvm snap
Lucas Nussbaum writes:
> On 19/01/10 at 14:36 -0800, Russ Allbery wrote:
>> Well, I would argue that proper package builds in dirty environments is
>> something we want in Debian anyway, and while this isn't the ideal
>> method to find it, it would be a bug regardless of how the buildds
>> worked
Hi,
On Dienstag, 19. Januar 2010, Martin Zobel-Helas wrote:
> we already have two or three buildds doing that... The buildd team (esp.
> HE) working on that and if it works out to be stable enough, we can see
> if we can roll out it to all buildds.
very cool. thank you!
cheers,
Holger
On 19/01/10 at 14:36 -0800, Russ Allbery wrote:
> Neil McGovern writes:
> > On Tue, Jan 19, 2010 at 11:59:35AM -0800, Russ Allbery wrote:
>
> >> This is a bug in the netatalk Debian packaging. You cannot assume the
> >> package will be built in a clean chroot; among other things, the buildd
> >>
Neil McGovern writes:
> On Tue, Jan 19, 2010 at 11:59:35AM -0800, Russ Allbery wrote:
>> This is a bug in the netatalk Debian packaging. You cannot assume the
>> package will be built in a clean chroot; among other things, the buildd
>> software explicitly does not guarantee that all packages wi
Hi Neil,
On Tue Jan 19, 2010 at 22:29:25 +, Neil McGovern wrote:
> On Tue, Jan 19, 2010 at 11:59:35AM -0800, Russ Allbery wrote:
> > This is a bug in the netatalk Debian packaging. You cannot assume the
> > package will be built in a clean chroot; among other things, the buildd
> > software
On Tue, Jan 19, 2010 at 11:59:35AM -0800, Russ Allbery wrote:
> This is a bug in the netatalk Debian packaging. You cannot assume the
> package will be built in a clean chroot; among other things, the buildd
> software explicitly does not guarantee that all packages will be removed.
>
Would it b
Fabian Greffrath writes:
> it seems that some buildds occasionally have libssl-dev installed in
> their chroot. A friend of mine has found out that the netatalk package
> depends on libssl0.9.8 [sparc] in sid and [hppa, mipsel] in squeeze.
> Other architectures are not affected. For GPL-licensed
Hi,
it seems that some buildds occasionally have libssl-dev installed in
their chroot. A friend of mine has found out that the netatalk package
depends on libssl0.9.8 [sparc] in sid and [hppa, mipsel] in squeeze.
Other architectures are not affected. For GPL-licensed software like
netatalk this is
40 matches
Mail list logo
