On Wed, Jan 20, 2010 at 10:13:46PM +1300, Lucas Nussbaum wrote:
> What's the problem with documentation such as
> https://wiki.ubuntu.com/PbuilderHowto (except it's an Ubuntu
> documentation)? I think that the process of building with pbuilder is
> reasonably well documented.
Let's be realistic. We still have Debian developers not using pbuilder
cowbuilder, are you really arguing that _users_ will use it invariably
to rebuild their packages? I don't have numbers, but I'm reasonably sure
"apt-get source -b" is still the most used tool to rebuild packages
together with the magic recipe "fakeroot debian/rules binary".
Additionally, if you have to debug build failures, rebuilding in a real
system is still handier.
> > On the same line, this whole issue is one of the reason why we have
> > relationships like Build-Conflicts. Why having a non-declared
> > Build-Conflicts shouldn't be a bug?
> Feel free to start filing bugs. A good start would be the list of source
> packages[1] from 2008 that probably have a missing build-conflict, since
> they produced different binary packages (according to debdiff) in an
> unclean chroot. (that list contains some false positives)
You're cheating now :-) I was just arguing that your aut-aut was not
warranted, that we can live with a mixed environment in which those bugs
are not RC (and hence should not be pursued as actively as we do for RC
ones), but are still bug that ought to be filed. Be assured that I'll
file the one that will cross my path.
Cheers.
--
Stefano Zacchiroli -o- PhD in Computer Science \ PostDoc @ Univ. Paris 7
zack@{upsilon.cc,pps.jussieu.fr,debian.org} -<>- http://upsilon.cc/zack/
Dietro un grande uomo c'è ..| . |. Et ne m'en veux pas si je te tutoie
sempre uno zaino ...........| ..: |.... Je dis tu à tous ceux que j'aime
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature