[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: Need advice for cross building gammu



On 10/21/21 9:19 PM, Helmut Grohne wrote:

I'm pretty sure at this point that the fault is with salsa-ci and hope
that IOhannes can give some more insight here.

my immediate reaction was: i remember this issue, there should be both a Debian bug and a salsa-ticket for this


here they are:
- https://salsa.debian.org/salsa-ci-team/pipeline/-/issues/198
- https://bugs.debian.org/980058

however (as i've found out when searching for them), the reported issue seems to be the opposite of what you are describing here
(though of course the two seem to be related).

<rant>
in general my experience with mk-build-deps has not been overall satisfying when it comes to installing dependencies for arch:all vs arch:any builds...
</rant>


but anyhow, i can't really answer the question.

the reason i did it as i did was because i followed the existing template of "test-build-package-any" (which is quite what we want). given the automatic use of the code i was changing, i really wanted to keep any changes at a minimum, and esp. refrain from fixing other bugs while passing by (i had no intention to become the one who broke all "test-build-package-{any,all}" jobs on all packages that have enabled salsa-ci.)

as such the cross-building job has inherited all the bugs from the test-build-package-any pipeline.


as to the question asked on #debian-ci ("do you happen to know why salsa-ci uses mk-build-deps instead of say apt-get build-dep ./?":
i also have no clue (and just took what was already there).

looking at the script that invokes it, i *think* the reason is that we can use 'aptitude' (with a number of scoring-options set) as the resolver for installing the build-dependencies, something we couldn't do with a plain 'apt-get' (as it lacks support for the scoring-options)

gfmdasr
IOhannes

Attachment: OpenPGP_signature
Description: OpenPGP digital signature


Reply to: