Re: More pbuilder use!
"Roberto C. Sanchez" <email@example.com> 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
> 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.