|
Home > Archive > Debian Developers > August 2004 > sbuild package
You are viewing an archived Text-only version of the thread.
To view this thread in it's original format and/or if you want to reply to
this thread please [click here]
|
|
| Jesus Climent 2004-08-03, 8:28 am |
| sbuild package is broken.
There is an RC bug against it, 154 days old, because the script used to create
the chroot is broken.
There is a serious problem with, at least, bash and zsh, that freezes the
build system.
Please, consider orphaning the package and request the removal from the
archive, if you are not planing to continue working with it. buildd seems to
be the one used in the buildd's in debian at the moment.
Thanks!
(The latest sbuild upload was more than a year and a half ago: [2003-11-11])
--
Jesus Climent info:www.pumuki.org
Unix SysAdm|Linux User #66350|Debian Developer|2.4.26|Helsinki Finland
GPG: 1024D/86946D69 BB64 2339 1CAA 7064 E429 7E18 66FC 1D7F 8694 6D69
Personal note: When I was little my mother told me not to stare into the
sun, so when I was six I did.
--Maximillian Cohen (Pi)
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-REQUEST@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org
| |
| Gergely Nagy 2004-08-03, 5:54 pm |
| > sbuild package is broken.
It can't be that broken - works for me here, and did so ever since I
first installed it.
(Mind you, I created the chroot with debootstrap, and update it by hand)
> Please, consider orphaning the package and request the removal from the
> archive, if you are not planing to continue working with it. buildd seems to
> be the one used in the buildd's in debian at the moment.
I'd very much like to have sbuild in the archive, it spares me a lot of
time.
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-REQUEST@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org
| |
| Colin Watson 2004-08-03, 5:54 pm |
| On Tue, Aug 03, 2004 at 04:20:00PM +0200, Jesus Climent wrote:
> Please, consider orphaning the package and request the removal from
> the archive, if you are not planing to continue working with it.
> buildd seems to be the one used in the buildd's in debian at the
> moment.
Er, buildd uses sbuild, surely?
--
Colin Watson [cjwatson@flatline.org.uk]
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-REQUEST@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org
| |
| Andreas Barth 2004-08-03, 5:54 pm |
| * Colin Watson (cjwatson@debian.org) [040803 17:55]:
> On Tue, Aug 03, 2004 at 04:20:00PM +0200, Jesus Climent wrote:
[vbcol=seagreen]
> Er, buildd uses sbuild, surely?
Yes. So, if the current maintainer don't want to continue
maintainership, someone else should adopt it. In worst case, I'm
willing to do it myself.
Cheers,
Andi
--
http://home.arcor.de/andreas-barth/
PGP 1024/89FB5CE5 DC F1 85 6D A6 45 9C 0F 3B BE F1 D0 C5 D1 D9 0C
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-REQUEST@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org
| |
| Jesus Climent 2004-08-03, 5:54 pm |
| On Tue, Aug 03, 2004 at 05:26:10PM +0200, Gergely Nagy wrote:
>
> It can't be that broken - works for me here, and did so ever since I
> first installed it.
Try to compile bash
>
> I'd very much like to have sbuild in the archive, it spares me a lot of
> time.
i would like to have the sbuild which is used in the buildds.
J
--
Jesus Climent info:www.pumuki.org
Unix SysAdm|Linux User #66350|Debian Developer|2.4.26|Helsinki Finland
GPG: 1024D/86946D69 BB64 2339 1CAA 7064 E429 7E18 66FC 1D7F 8694 6D69
Gentlemen, you can't fight in here! This is the War Room.
--President Merkin Muffley (Dr. Strangelove)
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-REQUEST@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org
| |
| Richard A Nelson 2004-08-03, 5:54 pm |
| Speaking of sbuild...
Is there a way to have it pull the source from a private archive ?
--
Rick Nelson
* In anticipation of 2.10.02 release, updated to patchlevel
+ircu2.10.01+.config6-7.config7-8.lgline3.iwho.limit.glibc.motdcache2.trace.whois1-2.config8-9.statsw.sprintf2-3.msgtree2.memleak1-2+.msgtree2-3.gline8-9.gline9-10.invite2.rbr.stats.numclients.whisper.whisper1-2.stats1-2.nokick1-2.chroot.config9-11.s
nomask7-8.limi+t1-3.userip1-3.userip3-4.config11-12.config12-13.umode2-3.akillsbt.who4-5.kn.kn1-2.freebsdcore2.msgtree3-5.y2k.glibc1-2.rmfunc.msgf+lags2.who5-6.nickchange2.glibc2-3.modeless3
-- From the annoucement of ircd 2.10.01-3 for Debian GNU/Linux
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-REQUEST@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org
| |
| Gergely Nagy 2004-08-03, 5:54 pm |
| > > > sbuild package is broken.
>
> Try to compile bash
Selecting a few packages does not make it so broken that one requests
its removal. If it would break on most of the package - removal would be
justified. If it fails on a few, that's a bug, a nasty one which should
be fixed in a timely manner. However, it does not make the package
completely broken, and is not a good reason enough to ask for its
removal (or to suggest doing so).
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-REQUEST@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org
| |
| Jesus Climent 2004-08-03, 5:54 pm |
| On Tue, Aug 03, 2004 at 07:53:22PM +0200, Gergely Nagy wrote:
>
> Selecting a few packages does not make it so broken that one requests
> its removal. If it would break on most of the package - removal would be
> justified. If it fails on a few, that's a bug, a nasty one which should
> be fixed in a timely manner. However, it does not make the package
> completely broken, and is not a good reason enough to ask for its
> removal (or to suggest doing so).
It is broken if it has not been updated in 1.5 years, it was forked (and its
fork is used in the buildds), the bash bug was known and solved in the forked
branch (although no one ever filled a serious bug against it nor the changes
made on the forked oneone were integrated in the code) and the script which
the documentation claims need to be used has an RC for 154 days.
The possible paths are:
- take proper care of it
- remove it and upload the version used in the buildds
(which is not a drop-in replacement)
- hijack it
....
I never said it is completely broken. But it struck me that few people knew
about the bash problems and i did not find a bug report about it and no one
thought about a replacement.
Cheers,
--
Jesus Climent info:www.pumuki.org
Unix SysAdm|Linux User #66350|Debian Developer|2.4.26|Helsinki Finland
GPG: 1024D/86946D69 BB64 2339 1CAA 7064 E429 7E18 66FC 1D7F 8694 6D69
Yes...No...I don't know. I don't know what I want.
--Sam Lowry (Brazil)
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-REQUEST@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org
| |
| Jeroen van Wolffelaar 2004-08-03, 5:54 pm |
| On Tue, Aug 03, 2004 at 08:25:54PM +0200, Jesus Climent wrote:
> On Tue, Aug 03, 2004 at 07:53:22PM +0200, Gergely Nagy wrote:
>
> It is broken if it has not been updated in 1.5 years, it was forked (and its
http://lists.debian.org/debian-deve...8/msg00312.html :
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
Format: 1.7
Date: Tue, 3 Aug 2004 18:21:22 +0200
Source: sbuild
Binary: sbuild
Architecture: source all
Version: 0.30
Distribution: unstable
Urgency: high
Maintainer: Francesco Paolo Lovergine <frankie@debian.org>
Changed-By: Francesco Paolo Lovergine <frankie@debian.org>
Description:
sbuild - Tool for building Debian binary packages from Debian sources
Closes: 228410 228412 228412 228792 235726 239339 249995 259315
Changes:
sbuild (0.30) unstable; urgency=high
| |
| Roger Leigh 2004-08-03, 8:49 pm |
| -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
Jesus Climent <jesus.climent@hispalinux.es> writes:
> sbuild package is broken.
>
> There is an RC bug against it, 154 days old, because the script used to create
> the chroot is broken.
>
> There is a serious problem with, at least, bash and zsh, that freezes the
> build system.
Isn't the solution just to remove it and use debootstrap? That script
was known broken for a long time. I use sbuild itself, and don't have
problems (though I use a hand-built chroot).
I'm happy to document how to create the chroot with debootstrap,
though actually maintaining sbuild is not up my street (I find the
3500 lines of undocumented inpenetrable PERL regexes rather
unfriendly!).
> (The latest sbuild upload was more than a year and a half ago: [2003-11-11])
Just under nine months, surely?
Regards,
Roger
- --
Roger Leigh
Printing on GNU/Linux? http://gimp-print.sourceforge.net/
GPG Public Key: 0x25BFB848. Please sign and encrypt your mail.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.5 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Processed by Mailcrypt 3.5.8 <http://mailcrypt.sourceforge.net/>
iD8DBQFBD9eZVcFcaSW/ uEgRAgM3AJ4+zf1zi99MEnqZ4SZZCo5iCgwhogCf
VWHx
TPeSNkNXKqsG3pLVuMSe3yA=
=Pvc/
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-REQUEST@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org
| |
| Gergely Nagy 2004-08-03, 8:49 pm |
| > > > > > sbuild package is broken.
>
> It is broken if it has not been updated in 1.5 years, it was forked (and its
> fork is used in the buildds), the bash bug was known and solved in the forked
> branch (although no one ever filled a serious bug against it nor the changes
> made on the forked oneone were integrated in the code)
At least the bash bug should have been filed. It's pretty rude to bring
it up as an example without a bug being filed first (never mind its
known or not. I did not know about it, the maintainer might not follow
the relevant mailing list or IRC channel, etc), so at least it could
have been NMUd.
About changes not being integrated - as long as it works most of the
time, I don't really care. Those who do care, can help the maintainer by
offering co-maintainership or filing appopriate bugs.
> and the script which
> the documentation claims need to be used has an RC for 154 days.
That IS a problem, no question about that.
> The possible paths are:
>
> - take proper care of it
Or offer help to the maintainer if you're not statisfied with his work.
> - remove it and upload the version used in the buildds
> (which is not a drop-in replacement)
That would hurt users, unless you provide a smooth upgrade path (which
should be provided, if one wants to preserve the quality of Debian and
its high esteemed upgradability).
> - hijack it
Before that, one can offer co-maintainership. Which is way more polite
and helpful.
> I never said it is completely broken. But it struck me that few people knew
> about the bash problems and i did not find a bug report about it and no one
> thought about a replacement.
Well, those who knew about the bug, should have filed a bugreport. And
there's no need to think about a replacement when the existing tool can
be fixed.
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-REQUEST@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org
| |
| Goswin von Brederlow 2004-08-03, 8:49 pm |
| Jesus Climent <jesus.climent@hispalinux.es> writes:
> On Tue, Aug 03, 2004 at 07:53:22PM +0200, Gergely Nagy wrote:
>
> It is broken if it has not been updated in 1.5 years, it was forked (and its
> fork is used in the buildds), the bash bug was known and solved in the forked
The bash bug only exists since bash 3.0 I think. But the two zsh
package have hit the same bug.
> branch (although no one ever filled a serious bug against it nor the changes
> made on the forked oneone were integrated in the code) and the script which
> the documentation claims need to be used has an RC for 154 days.
MfG
Goswin
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-REQUEST@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org
| |
| Francesco P. Lovergine 2004-08-03, 8:49 pm |
| On Tue, Aug 03, 2004 at 07:21:15PM +0100, Roger Leigh wrote:
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA1
>
> Jesus Climent <jesus.climent@hispalinux.es> writes:
>
>
> Isn't the solution just to remove it and use debootstrap? That script
> was known broken for a long time. I use sbuild itself, and don't have
> problems (though I use a hand-built chroot).
>
[ Sorry guys, I missed the whole thread today, I'm uploading a few
updates in this days, due to my next vacation period and
freezing (oh shit, we waited more than 2 years and again we will release
while I'll be off, someone hates me...) ]
Well, basically it's what I did with that crap. Maintaining in two
different places (sbuild and debootstrap) the list of base and
build-essential packages is at least stupid.
Michael Banck proposed to startup an alioth project for sbuild
maintainership. I'd prefer to enlarge the maintainership
to the whole buildd chain (aka wanna-build) which should become
surely a standard package, not a woodoo macumba as it is currently.
> I'm happy to document how to create the chroot with debootstrap,
> though actually maintaining sbuild is not up my street (I find the
> 3500 lines of undocumented inpenetrable PERL regexes rather
> unfriendly!).
>
>
> Just under nine months, surely?
>
Well, I missed to upload 0.29 in february which closed a bounce of pending
issues, my fault. BTW, I did prefer to improve decently the package instead
of patching around, but I missed times.
--
Francesco P. Lovergine
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-REQUEST@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org
| |
| George Danchev 2004-08-05, 9:14 am |
| On Wednesday 04 August 2004 00:35, Francesco P. Lovergine wrote:
--cut--
> Well, basically it's what I did with that crap. Maintaining in two
> different places (sbuild and debootstrap) the list of base and
> build-essential packages is at least stupid.
> Michael Banck proposed to startup an alioth project for sbuild
> maintainership. I'd prefer to enlarge the maintainership
> to the whole buildd chain (aka wanna-build) which should become
> surely a standard package, not a woodoo macumba as it is currently.
Right, the wanna-build src package from cvs.linux-m68k.org must be
group-maintained at alioth. It still has no Build-Depends line in its control
file and still strictly build-depends by old packages like python1.5 from
stable. Also the sbuild deb produced by this src package contains the tool of
'andrea' whereas the sbuild 0.30 from unstable doesn't contain the andrea
tool. I think that if we want two sbuild packages for some reason (which
reminds me about dinstall and mini-dinstall), then the sbuild 0.30 package
from unstable must be renamed as mini-sbuild or sbuild-lite or similar,
otherwise the sbuild 0.30 in the unstable archive must be replaced by sbuild
from wanna-build src package (I'm not sure why it can not be a drop-in
replacement :-/). That wanna-build src package must produces the following
debs: wanna-build, buildd, sbuild, andrea (currently bundled within the
sbuild deb), quinn-diff, rbuild, and wanna-build-doc (upstreamed by
http://m68k.debian.org/buildd/abstract/node2.html). It would be nice if this
wanna-build thingie uses extensively debconf to ask for configurations. Hm,
where to find sources and docs for the dinstall (not mini-dinstall) program?
All these are after Sarge works of cource.
--
pub 4096R/0E4BD0AB 2003-03-18 <keyserver.bu.edu ; pgp.mit.edu>
fingerprint 1AE7 7C66 0A26 5BFF DF22 5D55 1C57 0C89 0E4B D0AB
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-REQUEST@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org
| |
| Colin Watson 2004-08-05, 9:14 am |
| On Tue, Aug 03, 2004 at 09:50:12AM -0700, Richard A Nelson wrote:
> Is there a way to have it pull the source from a private archive ?
You can put the source package in the directory where you invoke sbuild,
if that helps.
--
Colin Watson [cjwatson@flatline.org.uk]
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-REQUEST@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org
| |
| Francesco P. Lovergine 2004-08-05, 9:14 am |
| On Wed, Aug 04, 2004 at 11:48:14AM +0300, George Danchev wrote:
> On Wednesday 04 August 2004 00:35, Francesco P. Lovergine wrote:
> --cut--
>
> Right, the wanna-build src package from cvs.linux-m68k.org must be
> group-maintained at alioth.
FYI I requested the creation of buildd-tools on alioth.
> It still has no Build-Depends line in its control
> file and still strictly build-depends by old packages like python1.5 from
> stable. Also the sbuild deb produced by this src package contains the tool of
> 'andrea' whereas the sbuild 0.30 from unstable doesn't contain the andrea
> tool. I think that if we want two sbuild packages for some reason (which
> reminds me about dinstall and mini-dinstall), then the sbuild 0.30 package
> from unstable must be renamed as mini-sbuild or sbuild-lite or similar,
> otherwise the sbuild 0.30 in the unstable archive must be replaced by sbuild
> from wanna-build src package (I'm not sure why it can not be a drop-in
> replacement :-/). That wanna-build src package must produces the following
> debs: wanna-build, buildd, sbuild, andrea (currently bundled within the
> sbuild deb), quinn-diff, rbuild, and wanna-build-doc (upstreamed by
> http://m68k.debian.org/buildd/abstract/node2.html). It would be nice if this
> wanna-build thingie uses extensively debconf to ask for configurations. Hm,
> where to find sources and docs for the dinstall (not mini-dinstall) program?
> All these are after Sarge works of cource.
>
Yep, sid/sarge sbuild is for personal use essentially and could be dropped
in favour of pbuilder IMHO. The possibility of using uml-pbuilder or pbuilder
instead of sbuild in wanna-build world could also be explored.
And yes, it's a post-sarge goal...
--
Francesco P. Lovergine
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-REQUEST@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org
| |
| Francesco P. Lovergine 2004-08-05, 5:56 pm |
| On Thu, Aug 05, 2004 at 01:04:30AM +0200, Wouter Verhelst wrote:
> On Wed, Aug 04, 2004 at 07:21:48PM +0200, Francesco P. Lovergine wrote:
>
> Don't go that route. That's a bad idea.
>
> wanna-build, sbuild and buildd aren't perfect, but they do have one
> central philosophy: "build as many packages in as little time as
> possible". There are still a lot of places where this philosophy could
> be followed more strict, but alas. Sbuild follows this by /not/ nuking
> the chroot between every build, and by /not/ uninstalling packages which
> aren't in build-depends or build-essential between builds, if said
> packages were already installed. This may result in sbuild building
> packages which have a bug in their build-depends, but that's okay, since
> finding bugs isn't sbuild's task. Whenever a choice has to be made
> between accuracy and throughput, sbuild will go for the latter.
>
> pbuilder, on the other hand, tries to find bugs in packages'
> build-depends headers. It goes through great lengths to do this; thus,
> whenever a choice has to be made between accuracy and throughput,
> pbuilder will go for the former.
>
> While their jobs may /look/ similar to the uninitiated, let me tell you
> that they are not.
>
Good point.
> That said, the sources to sbuild, wanna-build and buildd /are/
> available, at http://db.debian.org/ debian-admin/ (although deb-src URLs
> don't work, because the .dsc is missing)
>
BTW it redirects to http://db.debian.org/ currently, do you mean by ssh?
That machine is restricted AFAIK.
--
Francesco P. Lovergine
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-REQUEST@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org
| |
| George Danchev 2004-08-05, 5:56 pm |
| On Thursday 05 August 2004 20:13, Francesco P. Lovergine wrote:
--cut--
>
> Good point.
Let sbuild packages live ;-) But the question of having two packages named as
sbuild remains: the one from unstable and the one from wanna-build src
package. I propose the one from unstable to be renamed as mini-sbuild or
sbuild-lite.
>
> BTW it redirects to http://db.debian.org/ currently, do you mean by ssh?
> That machine is restricted AFAIK.
Confirmed.
Also, reading this explanatory doc describing the wanna-build states [1] I can
not see the "Install-Wait" or "Reupload-Wait" state which is described as a
special situation in wanna-build/README from cvs.linux-m68k.org. Which is
outdated or probably doesn't worth mentioning ?
[1] http://people.debian.org/~wouter/wanna-build-states
--
pub 4096R/0E4BD0AB 2003-03-18 <keyserver.bu.edu ; pgp.mit.edu>
fingerprint 1AE7 7C66 0A26 5BFF DF22 5D55 1C57 0C89 0E4B D0AB
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-REQUEST@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org
| |
| Wouter Verhelst 2004-08-05, 8:48 pm |
| On Thu, Aug 05, 2004 at 07:13:32PM +0200, Francesco P. Lovergine wrote:
> On Thu, Aug 05, 2004 at 01:04:30AM +0200, Wouter Verhelst wrote:
>
> BTW it redirects to http://db.debian.org/ currently, do you mean by ssh?
> That machine is restricted AFAIK.
http://db.debian.org/debian-admin/w...04.02.23.tar.gz
As I said, the deb-src URL doesn't work, but it's there :-)
--
EARTH
smog | bricks
AIR -- mud -- FIRE
soda water | tequila
WATER
-- with thanks to fortune
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-REQUEST@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org
| |
| Wouter Verhelst 2004-08-05, 8:48 pm |
| On Thu, Aug 05, 2004 at 08:48:05PM +0300, George Danchev wrote:
> Also, reading this explanatory doc describing the wanna-build states
> [1] I can not see the "Install-Wait" or "Reupload-Wait" state which is
> described as a special situation in wanna-build/README from
> cvs.linux-m68k.org. Which is outdated or probably doesn't worth
> mentioning ?
Have you read the explanation of the -Wait states?
These states handle a special case, the delayed-frozen-installation,
which is described in its own chapter at the end of this document.
In other words, they were only useful when testing didn't exist yet and
unstable was turned into frozen. That hasn't happened anymore since
potato was released, so it pretty much qualifies as "outdated" to me ;-)
--
EARTH
smog | bricks
AIR -- mud -- FIRE
soda water | tequila
WATER
-- with thanks to fortune
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-REQUEST@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org
| |
| Michael Banck 2004-08-06, 5:55 pm |
| On Tue, Aug 03, 2004 at 07:30:38PM +0200, Jesus Climent wrote:
> On Tue, Aug 03, 2004 at 05:26:10PM +0200, Gergely Nagy wrote:
>
> i would like to have the sbuild which is used in the buildds.
The sbuild package in unstable is a fork of the sbuild used by the
buildds. IMHO the objectives are quite different, while the original one
is aimed at building packages supplied by buildd, the one in the archive
is aimed at making life easier for package maintainers. They have
different features and release cycles.
Anyway, you can get your buildd's sbuild at
deb http://db.debian.org/ debian-admin/
It would be nice if the source was avaiable for that as well, though, in
order to perhaps sync the two packages a bit in the future.
Debian admins, could you do this please?
cheers,
Michael
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-REQUEST@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org
| |
| Michael Banck 2004-08-06, 5:55 pm |
| On Wed, Aug 04, 2004 at 03:13:26PM +0100, Colin Watson wrote:
> On Tue, Aug 03, 2004 at 09:50:12AM -0700, Richard A Nelson wrote:
>
> You can put the source package in the directory where you invoke sbuild,
> if that helps.
You need to be in ~/build together with your sources though (or wherever
your chroots are AIUI), or otherwise sbuild will build in your /
directory. That's the main annoyance of the sbuild package in unstable
right now I guess (well, it's the same for the original one, but it
doesn't matter there cause sbuild always gets invoked by buildd)
Michael
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-REQUEST@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org
| |
| Michael Banck 2004-08-06, 5:55 pm |
| On Tue, Aug 03, 2004 at 11:35:12PM +0200, Francesco P. Lovergine wrote:
> Michael Banck proposed to startup an alioth project for sbuild
> maintainership. I'd prefer to enlarge the maintainership
> to the whole buildd chain (aka wanna-build) which should become
> surely a standard package, not a woodoo macumba as it is currently.
While I think that sbuild is of potential use to every Debian Developer,
the whole wanna-build suite is not IMHO.
So instead of going for the big goal (everybody having their own buildd),
I would much rather prefer to make sbuild more usable for developers
while keeping it in sync mostly with the one used by the buildds.
Michael
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-REQUEST@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org
| |
| Michael Banck 2004-08-06, 5:55 pm |
| On Wed, Aug 04, 2004 at 11:48:14AM +0300, George Danchev wrote:
> Right, the wanna-build src package from cvs.linux-m68k.org must be
> group-maintained at alioth. It still has no Build-Depends line in its control
> file and still strictly build-depends by old packages like python1.5 from
> stable. Also the sbuild deb produced by this src package contains the tool of
> 'andrea' whereas the sbuild 0.30 from unstable doesn't contain the andrea
> tool. I think that if we want two sbuild packages for some reason (which
> reminds me about dinstall and mini-dinstall), then the sbuild 0.30 package
> from unstable must be renamed as mini-sbuild or sbuild-lite or similar,
> otherwise the sbuild 0.30 in the unstable archive must be replaced by sbuild
> from wanna-build src package (I'm not sure why it can not be a drop-in
> replacement :-/). That wanna-build src package must produces the following
> debs: wanna-build, buildd, sbuild, andrea (currently bundled within the
> sbuild deb), quinn-diff, rbuild, and wanna-build-doc (upstreamed by
> http://m68k.debian.org/buildd/abstract/node2.html). It would be nice if this
> wanna-build thingie uses extensively debconf to ask for configurations. Hm,
> where to find sources and docs for the dinstall (not mini-dinstall) program?
There are far too many 'must' in your post here.
The Debian buildd admins are the maintainers of these packages, and they
have chosen to maintain them how they see fit. It's Free Software, so
you are free to fork wanna-build every day, but don't expect the Debian
buildd admins to use your code or the Debian project trying to make them
to.
If you want to improve on the packaging side, I suggest you pick up the
work done by Roger Leigh and try to submit some well-contained patches
to the buildd admins first. If that doesn't help, make your own packages
and advertise them somewhere.
Michael
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-REQUEST@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org
| |
| George Danchev 2004-08-06, 5:55 pm |
| On Friday 06 August 2004 16:51, Michael Banck wrote:
> On Wed, Aug 04, 2004 at 11:48:14AM +0300, George Danchev wrote:
>
> There are far too many 'must' in your post here.
Please, parse these 'musts' as'I think it should be', or take them as
suggestions of mine.
> The Debian buildd admins are the maintainers of these packages, and they
> have chosen to maintain them how they see fit. It's Free Software, so
> you are free to fork wanna-build every day, but don't expect the Debian
> buildd admins to use your code or the Debian project trying to make them
> to.
That's ok and I don't want to put the burden on Debian Project's heads... Wait
a minute... someone wants to learn something from the latest wanna-build
sources. Can I have the master or canonical location of the cvs/svn/arch repo
containing the latest sources of wanna-build or I have to wait for alioth's
buildd-tools project to rise up ?
> If you want to improve on the packaging side, I suggest you pick up the
> work done by Roger Leigh and try to submit some well-contained patches
> to the buildd admins first. If that doesn't help, make your own packages
> and advertise them somewhere.
I'm only aware of that [1] Roger's work from these mail discussions [2].
Unfortunately [1] has been showing me error 403 for long time ago. Searching
more closely d-d archives [3] brings to me [4]... but how I am supposed to
know exactly <whatever the version is> sits on that url, without diging more
and more till meet [5]. doh.
[1] http://www.whinlatter.uklinux.net/buildd/
[2] http://mailman.nocrew.org/pipermail...ber/000068.html
[3] http://lists.debian.org/debian-deve...6/msg00680.html
[4] http://lists.debian.org/debian-deve...6/msg00706.html
[5] http://lists.debian.org/debian-deve...8/msg00340.html
--
pub 4096R/0E4BD0AB 2003-03-18 <keyserver.bu.edu ; pgp.mit.edu>
fingerprint 1AE7 7C66 0A26 5BFF DF22 5D55 1C57 0C89 0E4B D0AB
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-REQUEST@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org
| |
| Roger Leigh 2004-08-07, 2:47 am |
| -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
Michael Banck <mbanck@debian.org> writes:
> On Tue, Aug 03, 2004 at 11:35:12PM +0200, Francesco P. Lovergine wrote:
>
> While I think that sbuild is of potential use to every Debian Developer,
> the whole wanna-build suite is not IMHO.
>
> So instead of going for the big goal (everybody having their own buildd),
> I would much rather prefer to make sbuild more usable for developers
> while keeping it in sync mostly with the one used by the buildds.
The last time I looked in detail (about a year and a bit ago), when I
was merging changes between wanna-build sbuild, the packaged sbuild
and my own packaged sbuild, the changes are not that great. The only
main thing missing from the packaged sbuild is some of the wanna-build
integration support, the rest is ~identical. It shouldn't take a lot
of effort to merge all the differences into a single version, should
that be desired.
(I don't have the time or skill to do it myself. My main problem is
that sbuild requires wizard-like PERL skills to understand it, which I
don't have (I can hack Perl, but my expertise lies with C and C++).
It doesn't comment or explain what the structures of the various
hashes-within-arrays-within-hashes kind of structures mean, leaving
the uninitiated rather in the cold. Combine that with line after line
of uncommented regexes, and it's getting incomprehensible for mere
mortals. That's not to say it isn't good code, just that the bar for
maintainence is far higher than most programs I've come across.)
Regards,
Roger
- --
Roger Leigh
Printing on GNU/Linux? http://gimp-print.sourceforge.net/
GPG Public Key: 0x25BFB848. Please sign and encrypt your mail.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.5 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Processed by Mailcrypt 3.5.8 <http://mailcrypt.sourceforge.net/>
iD8DBQFBFBcZVcFcaSW/ uEgRAv44AKCAwt7SDl5GIdTiTzeFtKjRGenVWACg
9g59
SBNoCfV8evV7hGC1RmDXN3c=
=eIx0
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-REQUEST@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org
| |
| Roger Leigh 2004-08-07, 2:47 am |
| George Danchev <danchev@spnet.net> writes:
> I'm only aware of that [1] Roger's work from these mail discussions [2].
> Unfortunately [1] has been showing me error 403 for long time ago.
>
> [1] http://www.whinlatter.uklinux.net/buildd/
The uklinux.net webserver had a hardware failure a week or so ago. I
think the apache config was changed when they brought it back up. The
files are still accessible by name, but the directories are not
viewable.
I've put them here instead:
http://people.debian.org/~rleigh/buildd/
Regards,
Roger
--
Roger Leigh
Printing on GNU/Linux? http://gimp-print.sourceforge.net/
GPG Public Key: 0x25BFB848. Please sign and encrypt your mail.
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-REQUEST@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org
|
|
|
|
|