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

Re: kbtin (new)




"Adam Borowski" <kilobyte@angband.pl> wrote in message [🔎] 20060621083604.GA29902@angband.pl">news:[🔎] 20060621083604.GA29902@angband.pl...
On Tue, Jun 20, 2006 at 08:55:40PM -0400, Joe Smith wrote:
"Adam Borowski" <kilobyte@angband.pl> wrote in message
[🔎] 20060620003809.GA10105@angband.pl">news:[🔎] 20060620003809.GA10105@angband.pl...

>The ITP is #213361.  The package is foo-clean; the packaging is
>trivial (clean autotoolage).
What is this foo package you keep talking about?
I know of lintian, linda, puiparts, but not foo.

And pbuilder.

What I mean, the set of automated tools to run is common to every
package tested at a given time.  Rare or specialized tools do exist,
but I haven't heard of them being used around d-m these days.

At this time, the fashion^Wcommon practice is to run:
* lintian
* linda
* pbuilder
* piuparts
and there is hardly ever any reason to skip any of them, so it can be
generally assumed that if a metasyntactic variable is used, it's used
as an abbreviation for all four.

I assumed you meant something like that. I would personally use either:
{lintian,linda,pbuilder,piuparts}-clean, or $FOO-clean, just to be clear.

For the record I'm not a sponsor, I am not even a DD. Just a person trying to be helpful. It would be nice if debuild would grow a feature allowing compilation via pbuild. pdebuild lacks many features of the real debuild. Adding piuparts support to debuild would then make a single command that builds the package in a clean chroot and tuns all the main automatic tests.




Reply to: