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

Re: Using buildds only

On Thu, Aug 25, 2005 at 08:01:24PM +0200, Martin Pitt wrote:
> Michael Spang [2005-08-25 12:44 -0400]:
> > If they're not fixable (I don't see how this could be) perhaps we
> > need a Build-Conflicts field.
> Most probably not, since buildd chroots only install the required
> build-deps and build-essential,

That is not guaranteed. A buildd chroot that is not rebuilt before each
build (as is the case on most build daemons) will gradually collect more
and more packages when there are bugs in maintainer scripts preventing
packages from being uninstalled (as happens rather frequently); so on an
average buildd, there's more installed than just 'build-essential and

Also, there are build daemons that have some packages preinstalled
anyway, even if they're not build-essential, because it's either faster
or convenient. Examples are debhelper (no point in not having that
installed by default if 90% of packages use it, even if it's not
build-essential) and on some of my machines, alternative compilers (to
more easily find out whether a package that triggers a bug in the
toolchain also does so with other compiler versions)

> so there shouldn't actually be build conflicts.

Oh, there most certainly should. If a package doesn't compile when
another package is installed, and it's not possible to fix that, then
you most definately need a build conflict.

The amount of time between slipping on the peel and landing on the
pavement is precisely one bananosecond

Reply to: