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

Re: Buildd & binary-indep


Am Samstag, den 25.09.2010, 17:04 +0200 schrieb Adam Borowski:
> On Sat, Sep 25, 2010 at 03:03:51PM +0200, Joachim Breitner wrote:
> > > Uhm, but shouldn't that massive multi-hour _building_ of data be in a
> > > "build" (specifically, "build-indep") target rather than "install"?
> > 
> > one would expect that it works this way, any many people before you were
> > surprised by this fact. The problem is that build-indep and build-arch
> > are not required targets, and there is no easy way of checking whether
> > they exist.
> Oh, right.  That's indeed nasty.
> I've skimmed through discussions about this matter, and the problem seems to
> be that make does not provide a way to tell why it failed -- so it's not
> possible to tell if the "build-indep" target exists.
> Except, make does give an unique error message.  It may differ in various
> versions of make or locales, but at least for GNU make (which we do require)
> it's always different from anything else that can go wrong.

I’m still not convinced why we could not (after a release) just make it
required, fix packages using cdbs or dh7 centrally, wait for half a year
(while filing bugs etc.), then make the the buildds start calling
build-indep and NMU the remaining failing packages.

But a script like yours could indeed help to reduce the fallout.


Joachim "nomeata" Breitner
Debian Developer
  nomeata@debian.org | ICQ# 74513189 | GPG-Keyid: 4743206C
  JID: nomeata@joachim-breitner.de | http://people.debian.org/~nomeata

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part

Reply to: