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

Re: New debian-edu build rules fail on autobuilders

On Fri, 25 Jan 2008, Petter Reinholdtsen wrote:

Check <URL:http://buildd.debian.org/pkg.cgi?pkg=debian-edu>.  Andreas,
can you have a look?  Suspect the binary build stuff might be broken.

Two strange things are happening:

/usr/share/cdd-dev/cdd-gen-control -s unstable -t -A > debian-edu-tasks.desc.new && mv debian-edu-tasks.desc.new debian-edu-tasks.desc
Get:1 http://ftp.se.debian.org testing Release.gpg [189B]
Get:2 http://ftp.se.debian.org testing Release [68.6kB]
Get:3 http://ftp.se.debian.org testing/main Packages [4859kB]
Get:4 http://ftp.se.debian.org testing/contrib Packages [69.8kB]
Get:5 http://ftp.se.debian.org testing/non-free Packages [75.1kB]

The option -s unstable should ask for Packages file form unstable
(I have the same effect on my box and will hopefully be quickly able
to fix this).

The other thing is that debian-edu-0.824 sources are
      Architecture: any

statements.  I don't know whether you did this change intentionally
(I'm currently unable to access SVN) but this definitely causes the
problem.  The rules file that is used by cdd-dev says:

# Build architecture-dependent files here.
binary-arch: build install
# We have nothing to do by default.

# Build architecture-independent files here.
binary-indep: build install
        dh_installdocs $(INSTALLREADME)

so simply nothing is done for Architecture:any packages here. Strangely
enough when I start the build on my box in a pbuilder environment the
binary-indep target is builded anyway. I admit I have no explanation for this but the solution would be obviousely

# Build architecture-dependent files here.
- binary-arch: build install
+ binary-arch: build-indep
# We have nothing to do by default.

which would force to build indep target in any case.  On the other hand
I would like to hear the reasons why you changed from all to any (there
is a reference to this change in the changelog and #364262).  I wonder
whether I missed something because my impression was that meta packages
are architecture independent.  So before I do a quick fix I would like
to hear the reasons which might require deeper investigations.

Kind regards

      Andreas (continuosely wondering why on my box binary-arch is builded
               even if it should not ...)


Reply to: