Re: Bug#822110: odil: FTBFS when built with dpkg-buildpackage -A (chrpath fails)
Hi,
just a quick note: I'm not up for sponsoring today.
Kind regards
Andreas.
On Fri, Apr 22, 2016 at 07:42:25AM +0100, Ghislain Vaillant wrote:
> On 22/04/16 07:03, Julien Lamy wrote:
> >It seems that my fix actually made things worse since the builds have
> >failed for almost all architectures [1]. I think the cause is me not
> >reading correctly pbuilder's man page and build testing my previous
> >version with "--debbuildopts -B" instead of "--binary-arch". I've
> >committed a new version, with a better separation of arch and indep in
> >d/rules [2]. I've checked that "pbuilder --debbuildopts -A" builds only
> >indep packages, that "pbuilder --binary-arch" build only arch packages
> >and that packages are usable.
> >
> >Does this new version seem correct ? Are there other tests to run than
> >my pbuilder ones ?
> >
> >Sorry for the noise !
> >
> >[1] https://buildd.debian.org/status/package.php?p=odil
> >[2] https://anonscm.debian.org/cgit/debian-med/odil.git/commit/
> >
> >Cheers,
>
> Hey Julien,
>
> Indeed if you want to achieve true separation between -arch and -indep
> only builds, then the additional overrides you listed with a no-op in it
> are required.
>
> This however:
> +override_dh_auto_build-arch:
> dh_auto_build
>
> ...should not be needed I believe.
>
> That being said what *really* matters is having -arch only builds
> working. If asking -indep builds results in a full build, then this is
> not exactly a deal breaker, since not all upstream designed their build
> system with such separation between -arch and -indep targets in mind.
>
> Still nice you figured your case out. Plus, your d/rules does not look
> too bad apart from the no-op targets.
>
> Best regards,
> Ghislain
>
>
--
http://fam-tille.de
Reply to: