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

Re: dpkg enhancements

Christian Schwarz <schwarz@monet.m.isar.de> wrote:
>On Wed, 26 Nov 1997, Andreas Jellinghaus wrote:
>> the normal order is :
>> a) "debian/rules clean" : remove all old files
>> b) "dpkg-source -b dir-version/" : build diff and dsc file
>> c) "debian/rules build" : compile package
>> d) "debian/rules binary" : install binaries, set permissions, build package

>> i propose a flag to use the alternative order c) d) a) b)

>As we are currently not very good regarding reproducability (is this the
>right term?) of our packages I strongly object that this.

>Note, that this does not apply when you do _private_ test compiles. You
>could surely save a lot of time to skip step a) and b) (and probably c).
>But for the final compile of which the results are uploaded, the order of
>steps a) to d) may not be changed.

I'd like a flag such as Andreas describes added to dpkg-buildpackage,
because I usually use dpkg-buildpackage for test builds, not just the
final 'upload' compile.  (I suppose "debian/rules build" is just too
much to type compared with "dpkg-b<tab>"...)

How about adding this flag, but have dpkg-buildpackage refuse to pgp-sign
any files when it's used, as a warning to the maintainer that the package
produced should not be uploaded?

Charles Briscoe-Smith
White pages entry, with PGP key: <URL:http://alethea.ukc.ac.uk/wp?95cpb4>
PGP public keyprint: 74 68 AB 2E 1C 60 22 94  B8 21 2D 01 DE 66 13 E2

TO UNSUBSCRIBE FROM THIS MAILING LIST: e-mail the word "unsubscribe" to
debian-devel-request@lists.debian.org . 
Trouble?  e-mail to templin@bucknell.edu .

Reply to: