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

Re: More pbuilder use!

"Roberto C. Sanchez" <roberto@familiasanchez.net> writes:

> On Tue, Aug 23, 2005 at 12:40:18AM -0400, Joe Smith wrote:
>> Actually perhaps software should be built outside of clean chroots. Why? 
>> Because if there is a possibility that a dirty chroot will cause the package to 
>> fail, there is a bug in some peice of software. It could prevent a user from 
>> recompiling on his own system, which thusly defeats the point of having the 
>> source in the first place.
>> If a package Fails To Build From Source on a end-user system it is an RC bug. 
>> By bug definitions i would say a minimum of  'serious', but 'critical' would be 
>> better. Why? Simple: If users can make the changes they want, than Debian is 
>> NOT free. If it is not free, it has failed.
> So, if I try to compile a random package with icc and it fails, that is

How would it build with icc? icc is neither gcc nor cc. You have to
use clean build scripts with a clean environment. I always suggest
debuild since that cleans up automaticaly before calling

If you replace build-essential apckages with something custom and that
breaks the source that is then obviously your problem. Worth reporting
in case of icc but not with normal FTBFS priority.

> RC?  That doesn't really make sense.  At some point you need to draw the
> line.  I think the clean-chroot build policy should be maintained.  If
> users discover that a package does not build with some strange or
> non-standard combination of packages, then they are free to submit
> patches.  However, the existence of such problems should not be
> considered RC since Debian is a binary distro.

Build-Depends (and imho that includes Build-Conflicts) were a RC
criterium for sarge and no doubt will be again for etch. Any failure
to build on a system with only debian packages installed is imho a
FTBFS bug with the severity layed out for FTBFS (i.e. RC if it did
build before).

> Think about it.  I could have maintained gcc-2.95 on my system becuase I
> like it (or need it/whatever).  If tried to build some of the bleeding
> edge packages with it, it will likely fail.  That does not make it RC
> since Debian doesn't even ship 2.95 anymore as the default.

No it won't fail. You are required to have a current sid
build-essential package installed which will upgrade gcc and pull in
gcc-4.0. That implicit Build-Depends you have to have. If not then you
are right, it isn't a bug in the package but in the user.

Any installed gcc-2.95 would not be used by the build with a current
build-essential unless it is a bug.

> -Roberto


Reply to: