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

[hertzog@debian.org: devscripts: debuild should not fork dpkg-buildpackage]



Hi,

JFTR, I have filed the attached bug against devscripts.
It received bug number #476100.

(forwarding the bug manually here since the anti-BTS filters blocked the
X-Debbugs-Cc that i used)

Cheers,
-- 
Raphaël Hertzog

Le best-seller français mis à jour pour Debian Etch :
http://www.ouaza.com/livre/admin-debian/
--- Begin Message ---
Package: devscripts
Version: 2.10.25
Severity: important

Hello,

while investigating #476054 I discovered that debuild is really a fork of
dpkg-buildpackage and no more a simple wrapper of it. (BTW the manual
page is wrong... it says "It first runs dpkg-buildpackage" which is not
the case unless you have dpkg-cross installed... BTW dpkg-cross does no
more divert dpkg-buildpackage in its latest versions).

This is _bad_ because:

1/ developer using debuild don't have the same behaviour than buildd using
dpkg-buildpackage... we have concrete examples now that supplementary
features have been added like default values for CFLAGS or stuff like
that. They receive FTFBS bug reports and they can't reproduce it because
they use debuild and not dpkg-buildpackage like the rest of the Debian
infrastructure.

2/ somehow it feels like the devscripts developer consider
dpkg-buildpackage dead code that can't be changed... and instead of
working with the dpkg developers to add the missing features, you work
around by duplicating its code and modifying it. This isn't the kind
of cooperation that I expect. (Granted, the dpkg team might not have
always been as reactive as it is, but that's not a good excuse :-))

The differing behaviour is going to cause enough troubles that I decided
to use important as severity. Feel free to change it if you want.

Anyway, in general, I'd like the devscripts developers to think twice
at what is appropriate for devscripts and what is appropriate for
dpkg-dev. Feel free to redirect some of your wishlist bugs on dpkg-dev or
at least seek our opinion if you're not sure of the right place for a
given feature.

I'am now awaiting from you some wishlist bugs on dpkg-dev so that we can
fill in the gaps of missing features on dpkg-buildpackage and get rid of
that ugly fork. You can also patch your copy to add the same set of
features as quick fix, but I really want to cleanup the situation in the
mid-term.

Thanks for your comprehension.

Cheers,
  Raphaël Hertzog.


--- End Message ---

Reply to: