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

Bug#744246: Processed: build profiles not yet supported by debian infrastructure

On 08/19/2014 14:27, Ian Jackson wrote:
> Helmut Grohne <helmut@subdivi.de>:
>> I ask you to find a way that enables uploading packages that make use of
>> build profiles[1] to the experimental archive as soon as possible. The
>> need for build profiles is already known for years (#661538), but it was
>> hard to agree on a syntax which finally happened when dpkg 1.17.2 was
>> uploaded to sid in December 2013.
>> Currently uploading Build-Profile enabled packages fails, because such
>> packages are rejected by dak. The immediate problem was summarized in
>> this bug report:
> ...
>> Since filing that bug Johannes Schauer and myself talked to various
>> teams to address this issue ultimately leading to no progress.
>>  * FTP indicated that they can work with whatever DSA installs. Using a
>>    non-packaged copy of python-apt from jessie was considered too much
>>    maintenance burden.

I think we only talked on IRC, but we do not want to use a version of
python-apt that does not come as a package from the archive and that we
would have to maintain ourselves.

I'm also at least unhappy if we introduced packages in the archive that
cannot be processed with tools in stable (at least packages in unstable
that might go into testing).

>>  * SRM deemed our patches too invasive. Thread starts at:
>>    https://lists.debian.org/debian-dpkg/2014/04/msg00034.html

I think there were miscommunications... see also [1]. I don't think
there has been a conclusion so far.

  [1] <https://lists.debian.org/20140725124517.GA17007@simplex.0x539.de>

>> While each team's members were constructive at all times and their
>> reasons are reasonable, the result is that build profiles do not work
>> now.
>> Given the above, I ask CTTE to find a constructive way allows uploading
>> Build-Profile enabled packages to experimental (or even sid).
> Concretely, I think you are asking the committee to overrule one of
> the following decisions:
>  - ftpmaster's decision against using a non-packaged python-apt
>  - DSA's decision only to use stable or stable-backports
>  - SRM's decision not to accept your patches
>  - backports's decision not to accept your patches
> Is that right ?

I don't think that is a valid option[2]. However, the ctte can of course
offer advice.

  [2] <https://lists.debian.org/debian-devel/2014/06/msg00597.html>


Reply to: