On Wed, May 16, 2007 at 08:10:44AM +0200, Martin Zobel-Helas wrote:
> as a QA effort the whole archive was rebuilt yesterday to catch
> build-failures, whether a package can be build twice in a row (unpack,
> build, clean, build). We found about 400 packages not having a sane
> clean target.
Wow, thanks for the effort!
> To cite
> http://www.debian.org/doc/debian-policy/ch-source.html#s-debianrules
>
> clean
>
> This must undo any effects that the build and binary targets may
> have had, except that it should leave alone any output files created
> in the parent directory by a run of a binary target.
Isn't "twice building" too coarse grained to spot actual violation of
this rule? I mean, packages that fail to build the second time have for
sure garbage left around after the former invocation of "clean". But it
is not granted that packages with garbage left around will fail to
build.
Wouldn't it be better to unpack a package twice in two different
directories, build and clean in one dir and then compare the obtained
tree with the tree available in the other dir?
I know, that's cheap talk while you actually provided facts :-), just
take this as a curiosity of mine / suggestion for future tests.
Many thanks again for this!
--
Stefano Zacchiroli -*- PhD in Computer Science ............... now what?
zack@{cs.unibo.it,debian.org,bononia.it} -%- http://www.bononia.it/zack/
(15:56:48) Zack: e la demo dema ? /\ All one has to do is hit the
(15:57:15) Bac: no, la demo scema \/ right keys at the right time
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature