On 16/05/07 at 10:11 +0200, Stefano Zacchiroli wrote:
> 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?
As already mentioned by others, you are going to get a lot of false
positives.
An alternative could be to keep the files created by the first build
(*.{deb,diff.gz,orig.tar.gz,dsc,changes}) and compare them with those
from the second build, using debdiff. This would allow to spot the most
obvious problems (e.g missing/added files).
--
| Lucas Nussbaum
| lucas@lucas-nussbaum.net http://www.lucas-nussbaum.net/ |
| jabber: lucas@nussbaum.fr GPG: 1024D/023B3F4F |
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature