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

Re: Getting the buildds to notice new architectures in a package

On Mon, Jul 17, 2006 at 02:40:28PM -0400, Joe Smith wrote:
> "Wouter Verhelst" <wouter@debian.org> wrote in message 
> >There is no such general solution. See
> ><http://www.debian.org/devel/buildd/wanna-build-states#not-for-us>
> That says:
> >However, wanna-build does not look at the control file of a package
> >when creating its database; only at the packages' name and section,
> >its urgency, and its priority.
> Shouldn't wanna-build use the control file?

Perhaps. The issue is that wanna-build needs to know whether a package
has already been built for its architecture; one can only find that out
by looking at the Packages file, and comparing that with the Sources

Since the Packages and Sources files contain all the information
wanna-build needs (except for the architectures for which a build should
be attempted), and since fetching the control files is a _lot_ more work
than to write a parser for Packages and Sources files which can just be
piped into wanna-build, it isn't done.

Also, such a thing would probably require quite some I/O, so I'm not
entirely sure it's worth it. But if you could write some patch which
does not ever break and which allows to read the control file, I'm sure
it'll be welcome.

(I'm not sure why it still listed "upload urgency" as a criterion there
-- that's a bug in the documentation that I introduced, but it's never
been true. I've just committed a fix)

> It would then mean that the lists of packages-arch-specific would not
> be needed, except in the case of a single version override in the
> event that a package's control file accidentally listed an
> architecture on which it is not supported, or failed to list an
> architecture on which it is supported. 

The latter wouldn't work anyway -- if it isn't supported,
dpkg-buildpackage refuses to build the package.

Fun will now commence
  -- Seven Of Nine, "Ashes to Ashes", stardate 53679.4

Reply to: