Date: 16 Jun 2003 19:40:34 -0400
From: Colin Walters <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Well, probably the main reason we haven't hit this before is that
most people don't bother to do a proper arch/indep split in their
packages, and just stuff everything into Build-Depends.
And that's what I'm g
On Wed, Jun 18, 2003 at 03:33:50PM -0400, Colin Walters wrote:
> On Wed, 2003-06-18 at 14:44, Colin Watson wrote:
> > On Wed, Jun 18, 2003 at 02:11:06PM -0400, Colin Walters wrote:
> > > On Wed, 2003-06-18 at 13:36, Bill Allombert wrote:
> > > > Not having the buildd installing tons of unneeded pac
On Wed, 2003-06-18 at 14:44, Colin Watson wrote:
> On Wed, Jun 18, 2003 at 02:11:06PM -0400, Colin Walters wrote:
> > On Wed, 2003-06-18 at 13:36, Bill Allombert wrote:
> > > Not having the buildd installing tons of unneeded packages reduce
> > > build problems and make the logs more readable,
> >
On Wed, Jun 18, 2003 at 02:11:06PM -0400, Colin Walters wrote:
> On Wed, 2003-06-18 at 13:36, Bill Allombert wrote:
> > Not having the buildd installing tons of unneeded
> > packages reduce build problems and make the logs more readable,
>
> Reduce build problems? How? As for the "readability"
On Wed, Jun 18, 2003 at 02:11:06PM -0400, Colin Walters wrote:
> On Wed, 2003-06-18 at 13:36, Bill Allombert wrote:
> > Not having the buildd installing tons of unneeded packages reduce
> > build problems and make the logs more readable,
>
> Reduce build problems? How?
The fewer packages you ne
On Wed, 2003-06-18 at 13:36, Bill Allombert wrote:
> As for your solution, this is a matter of taste between cleanness in the
> code and cleaness in what is done.
>
> I prefer the later.
I am most interested in what the buildd maintainers think. James?
> Not having the buildd installing tons
On Wed, Jun 18, 2003 at 12:27:13PM -0400, Colin Walters wrote:
> You just want to give up? I think that'd be very depressing. You know,
> there is another solution: have the autobuilders install
> Build-Depends-Indep too until such time as we have a proper
> build-arch/build-indep.
Well, I prefe
On Wed, 2003-06-18 at 06:16, Bill Allombert wrote:
> On Tue, Jun 17, 2003 at 06:27:11PM -0400, Colin Walters wrote:
> > On Tue, 2003-06-17 at 06:50, Andrew Suffield wrote:
> > > (or possibly an alias for build-arch)
> >
> > Then it seems to me what you want is to make build-arch and build-indep
>
On Tue, Jun 17, 2003 at 06:27:11PM -0400, Colin Walters wrote:
> On Tue, 2003-06-17 at 06:50, Andrew Suffield wrote:
> > (or possibly an alias for build-arch)
>
> Then it seems to me what you want is to make build-arch and build-indep
> required targets, and just invoke build-arch directly.
The p
On Tue, 2003-06-17 at 06:50, Andrew Suffield wrote:
> When I do it, I ignore what policy says and do what works. That means
> the build target is a no-op
This, of course, has the disadvantage of making the build target
useless.
> (or possibly an alias for build-arch)
Then it seems to me what y
On Mon, Jun 16, 2003 at 07:40:34PM -0400, Colin Walters wrote:
>
> Well, probably the main reason we haven't hit this before is that most
> people don't bother to do a proper arch/indep split in their packages,
> and just stuff everything into Build-Depends.
That is not true, look at bug #148932
On Mon, Jun 16, 2003 at 07:40:34PM -0400, Colin Walters wrote:
> > As I've said before: Policy is either meant to document current
> > practice or it's not. If it is, then it's wrong because the de facto
> > implementation of build-depends disagrees with it _and always has
> > done_ (or at least,
Date: 16 Jun 2003 19:40:34 -0400
From: Colin Walters <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Well, probably the main reason we haven't hit this before is that
most people don't bother to do a proper arch/indep split in their
packages, and just stuff everything into Build-Depends.
Lucky me. That's wha
On Mon, 2003-06-16 at 19:15, James Troup wrote:
> Colin Walters <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> >> If Build-Depends-Indep were
> >> installed to satisfy 'build' their entire raison d'etre would be
> >> voided.
> >
> > The buildds[...]
>
> invoke 'dpkg-buildpackage -B'.
Ah, OK.
> > This all goes
On Tue, 17 Jun 2003 00:15:49 +0100, James Troup <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> As I've said before: Policy is either meant to document current
> practice or it's not.
Like most things in life, it is not that simple. In most
cases, policy does document current practice -- but in some cases
Colin Walters <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> If Build-Depends-Indep were
>> installed to satisfy 'build' their entire raison d'etre would be
>> voided.
>
> The buildds[...]
invoke 'dpkg-buildpackage -B'.
> This all goes for dpkg-buildpackage too, of course.
Fine and dandy; feel free to talk to
[ Let's move this discussion to -policy, where it belongs. For
people reading -policy, the context is in bug #197100. ]
On Mon, 2003-06-16 at 16:45, James Troup wrote:
> I don't think it's a bug in the buildds.
And you do think it is a bug in laptop-net? (really cdbs) I don't.
> If Build
17 matches
Mail list logo
