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

Re: pdebuild, not removing build environment



On Fri, 2009-04-10 at 11:39 +0300, Eric Pozharski wrote:
> On Fri, Apr 10, 2009 at 12:36:50AM +0800, Chow Loong Jin wrote:
> > On Thu, 2009-04-09 at 18:21 +0200, أحمد المحمودي wrote:
> > > On Thu, Apr 09, 2009 at 04:51:35PM +0200, Gudjon I. Gudjonsson wrote:
> > > >     Sorry if I have missed something obvious but, in case of error during 
> > > > build. How can I keep the pbuilder environment when I use pdebuild. I don't 
> > > > want pdebuild to remove the chroot environment after the error occurs.
> > > ---end quoted text---
> > > 
> > >   Well, the only method that I know is do a pbuilder login, then I build 
> > >   the package (after manually apt-get'ing its Build-Deps), so:
> > > 
> > >   $ pbuilder login
> > >   # apt-get install <build deps>
> > >   # dpkg-source -x <source package>.dsc
> > >   # cd <source package top dir>
> > >   # ./debian/rules build (or whatever)
> > 
> > A hook would save you all that trouble. I have a hook called C00Bash
> > which looks like this:
> > ========8<=========
> > #!/bin/sh
> > exec bash
> > ========>8=========
> > 
> > After a build (only if there's a failure), it'll drop to a Bash prompt
> > within the chroot, whereby you can head to /tmp/buildd/ and examine why
> > things went the way they did.
> 
> (just my 2cent) Someone interested could develop a hook that after
> looking for parent processes (it should go far enough) just would kill
> pbuilder.  This must be SIGKILL; otherwise the signal could be trapped.
> 
> p.s I'm not interested -- so I'm not that someone.
> 
Just replace "exec bash" with "killall -9 pbuilder". But seriously it's
pointless. If you keep the Bash prompt from that hook I posted earlier
open, you can poke around inside the chroot, and if you wish, you could
do the killing of pbuilder yourself, as it'll wait for you to close that
prompt.

-- 
Chow Loong Jin

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part


Reply to: