Re: Ricompilare tutta la Debian
8-§ > apt-build (me l'hanno segnalato gia' Paolo e Franco: grazie)
8-§ >
Forse non è buona norma per questa lista fare mail lunghe, ma era già apparso questo intervento:
From: Alberto Marmodoro <marmo@trieste.linux.it>
To: Debian Italian Mailing List <debian-italian@lists.debian.org>
Subject: Re: Ricompilazione XFree86 4.2 (was Upgrade)
On Sun, Sep 01, 2002 at 04:59:05PM +0200, Fabio Sirna wrote:
> Non ho mai ricompilato xfree...è tanto difficile?
Mi intrometto per proporre apt-build, l' ho provato proprio con
xfree4.2pre1v3 in accoppiata con gcc-2.95 -march=i686 -mcpu=i686 -O3 e
devo dire che ne sono stato proprio soddisfatto, scratch space richiesto
a parte: ha ricompilato tutto senza problemi (fortemente consigliato
ccache, visto la doppia ricompilazione in versione statica + debug e
normale), e su un p2 a 366MHz con neomagic 256AV l' incremento medio su
tutti i test di x11perf e` del 2%.
Forse provero` anche il gcc-3.2, la prossima notte ;D
--
Alberto
Marmodoro
Mentre su debian-user:
From: KennyD <KennyD@gmx.net>
To: debian-user@lists.debian.org
Subject: APT overrules self-compiled packages
Date: Mon, 12 Aug 2002 05:23:06 +0200
User-Agent: Mutt/1.3.28i
I tried to (re-)compile some debian packages on my machine using
apt-get source and dpkg-buildpackage - like I did for years, when I was
running potato - just to have optimized code for my AMD K7. But unlike
potato's apt, woody's apt reinstalls every selfcompiled package using
sources.list everytime I run apt-get upgrade, although it is the same
version. Like this:
apt-get source xfree86
cd xfree86-4.1.0
dpkg-buildpackage -rfakeroot -us -uc
dpkg -i ../xlibs_4.1.0-16_i386.deb # and some more...
apt-get upgrade
[..]
The following packages will be upgraded
xlibs
[..]
apt-get installs a new xlibs_4.1.0-16_i386.deb package from a remote mirror
or my local cache (I tried cleaning my cache, too!). Notice: it's the same
version I installed before with dpkg!
Has Anyone an idea what I could have missed, when I searched for an explicit
mention about that behaviour in the documentation? Is that apt's new
policy?
I think, it has nothing to do with priorities in /etc/apt/preferences, I
nearly tried everything. It's just as if APT regards official packages
as newer as a matter of principle.
I just found one solution (in theory!): making a
local package site including a Release.gz file and giving them a higher
priority through /etc/apt/preferences. But I don't want this.
<<---thread--->>
From: Simon Law <sfllaw@engmail.uwaterloo.ca>
To: debian-user@lists.debian.org
Subject: Re: APT overrules self-compiled packages
Date: Mon, 12 Aug 2002 15:23:51 -0400
User-Agent: Mutt/1.4i
On Mon, Aug 12, 2002 at 01:00:55PM -0600, Bob Proulx wrote:
> Simon Law <sfllaw@engmail.uwaterloo.ca> [2002-08-12 14:16:30 -0400]:
> > The canonical way to prevent Debian packages from clobbering
> > your custom-compiled packages a version number of custom-21.1-1. No
> > normal Debian package will ever have a higher number, even when using
> > epochs.
>
> That sentence did not parse for me. But it interested me.
> Could you clarify?
OK. Let's say I have emacs21, which is at version "21.2-1". If I
compile a new version, with some different compilation options, I'm
going to version it "custom-21.2-1". Since "c" is larger than an
number, this will always be higher.
If you want to make sure that epochs don't clobber your
versions, you can version it "9:custom-21.2-1" which makes it unlikely
that the Debian official package will ever have a higher epoch than
yours.
Simon
<<---thread--->>
So, let me precise my actual problem: I just want the current version
recompiled. If there is (really) a newer package out there (i.e. with bug-
or security fixes) I want that newer package to be installed. This happens
not very often, since I prefer to run the stable release all the time. I'm
not making any important changes to the source code. I just want it to be
compiled for my machine using a gcc-wrapper to optimize the code. I am
highly interested in bug or security fixes.
If renaming the package version is really necessary, I suppose changing the
number 21.2-1 to 21.2-1.i686 solves the problem. But the foolish person,
which is me, thought, it won't be really necessary and 'apt-get -b source'
would perform well. Every documentation about that tells me so. No one
ever told me to use debchange or to edit debian/changelog. ;)
Probably you all are right and I've overseen this important part of APT's
policy (official overrules selfcompiled).
Thanks for help,
_ Oh. Then you definitely want something like 21.2-1.0.i686.
That way, if someone does an NMU on the package, then you will get
21.2-1.1 instead. (I think.)
Unfortunately, apt-get --build source doesn't have features that
allow you to do that. What you _can_ do is wait for apt-src/apt-build
which I hear will have copious amounts of nifty tweaking features.
Simon
* Kenny Doberenz
<<---thread--->>
<<Unix IS user friendly... It's just selective about who its friends are!>>
See "User's Guide": http://www.debian.org/doc/manuals/users-guide/
See "Debian reference": http://www.debian.org/doc/manuals/debian-reference/
"Debian reference" Project at: http://qref.sf.net
Please DO NOT send e-mail with any attachment in a "proprietary format", such as either .doc or .ppt, BECAUSE: http://www.fsf.org/philosophy/no-word-attachments.html (the Italian version is available on the following url: http://www.fsf.org/philosophy/no-word-attachments.it.html)
T H A N K S ;-P
Reply to: