On Sun, Mar 23, 2003 at 03:17:54PM +0100, Robert Bihlmeyer wrote:
> Richard Braakman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > What does dh_testroot solve in the clean target? Seriously.
> > I've never understood why people put it in.
> It gives a slightly more understandable error message, that's all.
W
Richard Braakman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Thu, Mar 20, 2003 at 11:10:58PM +0100, Bill Allombert wrote:
> > Why? because they support building packages as root when
> > dh_testroot can solve a lot of headache ?
Ye gods! Removing dh_testroot does not break the build-as-root case!
> What d
On Thu, Mar 20, 2003 at 11:10:58PM +0100, Bill Allombert wrote:
> Why? because they support building packages as root when
> dh_testroot can solve a lot of headache ?
What does dh_testroot solve in the clean target? Seriously.
I've never understood why people put it in.
Richard Braakman
On Thu, Mar 20, 2003 at 10:42:36PM +0100, Robert Bihlmeyer wrote:
> Chris Waters <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > I think things are fine the way they are, I think what you're
> > suggesting would be a lot of work, I see no tangible benefits,
> > therefore I oppose the idea.
>
> The benefit is 9
Chris Waters <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> I think things are fine the way they are, I think what you're
> suggesting would be a lot of work, I see no tangible benefits,
> therefore I oppose the idea.
The benefit is 9 characters less typing per rebuild cycle per person.
There were patterns put i
On Tue, Mar 18, 2003 at 12:14:13AM +0100, Josip Rodin wrote:
> By the same measure, the dh_testroot in the binary rule would serve no
> purpose either, you'd find out it went wrong soon enough.
Indeed, and that's what I think. However, some people like to put
dh_testroot there, and it does no har
On Mon, Mar 17, 2003 at 10:32:58PM -0500, Anthony DeRobertis wrote:
> If the consensus is that having clean not require root (except
> in those two cases mentioned in policy) is a good thing [...]
I think things are fine the way they are, I think what you're
suggesting would be a lot of work, I s
On Mon, 2003-03-17 at 20:42, Chris Waters wrote:
> The argument against this is that the majority of package currently
> DO require root (or fakeroot, dh_testroot can't tell the difference).
> Nor does policy *FORBID* this -- it may not MANDATE it, but it doesn't
> forbid it, and we don't change p
On Sun, Mar 16, 2003 at 10:53:00PM -0500, Anthony DeRobertis wrote:
> My personal opinion (subject to change with good arguments against it,
> of course) is that clean must not require root unless another target has
> been invoked as root.
The argument against this is that the majority of package
On Tue, Mar 18, 2003 at 12:53:25AM +0200, Richard Braakman wrote:
> > Having to invent a method of telling the rules file it's running under
> > fakeroot rather than real root is equally annoying. (Right back atcha!)
>
> I don't get it. Why would you need that? All that's needed is to
> _not_ pu
On Mon, Mar 17, 2003 at 02:19:08PM +0100, Josip Rodin wrote:
> Having to invent a method of telling the rules file it's running under
> fakeroot rather than real root is equally annoying. (Right back atcha!)
I don't get it. Why would you need that? All that's needed is to
_not_ put dh_testroot i
On Mon, 2003-03-17 at 06:55, Josip Rodin wrote:
> Since the binary target is invoked as root (be it fakeroot or su or
> whatever, it doesn't matter), and the clean rule needs to clean out the
> debian/tmp or equivalent directories, it needs root as well.
Not with fakeroot:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Mon, Mar 17, 2003 at 02:37:25PM +0200, Richard Braakman wrote:
> > Since the binary target is invoked as root (be it fakeroot or su or
> > whatever, it doesn't matter), and the clean rule needs to clean out the
> > debian/tmp or equivalent directories, it needs root as well.
>
> Nope, if the bi
On Mon, Mar 17, 2003 at 12:55:41PM +0100, Josip Rodin wrote:
> Since the binary target is invoked as root (be it fakeroot or su or
> whatever, it doesn't matter), and the clean rule needs to clean out the
> debian/tmp or equivalent directories, it needs root as well.
Nope, if the binary target was
On Sun, Mar 16, 2003 at 10:53:00PM -0500, Anthony DeRobertis wrote:
> Must clean be invoked as root?
>
> Packages putting dh_testroot in the clean target assert so; current
> policy isn't so clear.
>
> My personal opinion (subject to change with good arguments against it,
> of course) is th
On Sun, 2003-03-16 at 20:13, Chris Waters wrote:
> But dh_testroot is part of the clean target in the examples that come
> with debhelper, and therefore probably in *every* debhelper-based
> package in Debian (which is the vast majority of packages). Why
> single out the poor slang developer to p
On Sun, Mar 16, 2003 at 10:58:18AM -0500, Anthony DeRobertis wrote:
> I did leave the bug at severity 'minor'. The reason I ever filed it was
> because it broke some auto-building stuff I was doing. So it did matter
> at the time.
But dh_testroot is part of the clean target in the examples that c
On Sat, 2003-03-15 at 20:34, Chris Waters wrote:
> On Sat, Mar 15, 2003 at 07:21:55PM -0500, Anthony DeRobertis wrote:
> You're trying too hard to parse it. This is not some silly game to see
> what sort of frivolous bug reports we can file today.
I did leave the bug at severity 'minor'. The rea
On Sat, Mar 15, 2003 at 07:21:55PM -0500, Anthony DeRobertis wrote:
> I parse "The clean target may need to be invoked as root if binary has
> been invoked..." as:
You're trying too hard to parse it. This is not some silly game to see
what sort of frivolous bug reports we can file today. The pu
> Anyway, I don't see how having a dh_testroot should be policy
> *violation*. From my reading, clean *may* get invoked as root, but from
> that it does not follow that it *must not* be invoked as root if
> unnecessary.
I parse "The clean target may need to be invoked as root if binary has
been in
20 matches
Mail list logo
