Re: Bug#336283: ara: [m68k] FTBFS
On Friday 04 November 2005 11:14, Sven Luther wrote:
> On Fri, Nov 04, 2005 at 11:02:31AM +0200, George Danchev wrote:
> > On Sunday 30 October 2005 11:14, Sven Luther wrote:
> > --cut--
> >
> > > > > # The arch-dependent packages are only available on archs supported
> > > > > by ocamlopt There are no native code compilers on arch m68k so
> > > > > this package arch-dependant part should not build on it.
> > > > > dpkg-genchanges -B -mDebian/m68k Build Daemon <cts-aahz@debian.org>
> > > > > dpkg-genchanges: arch-specific upload - not including
> > > > > arch-independent packages dpkg-genchanges: failure: cannot read
> > > > > files list file: No such file or directory
> > > >
> > > > Well, we end up needing dpkg-genchanges and dpkg-buildpackage with
> > > > support for building only architecture-independant parts of the
> > > > package and not architecture-dependent ones (see #109794 #200454).
> > >
> > > There is already infrastructure for binary-arch and binary-indep
> > > available, as well as two set of build-deps, the normal ones and the
> > > indep ones.
> >
> > Well that infrastructure is not done by dpkg-genchanges and
> > dpkg-buildpackage (unless I missed to see how) but it was tried to be
> > done as good as possible by our rules targets. Is there a way to build
> > just the binary-indep targets and deb packages on certain architectures
> > so that the build process can exit gracefully ? What we need is from a
> > single source package to produce native and native + indep packages
> > depending on the architecture that source package being built.
>
> autobuilders build with dpkg-buildpackage -B, and build only binary-dep.
> Not sure if the contrary is possible though. binary-indep parts are only
> built by the original builder and not touched at all by the autobuilders,
> and as thus the bytecode-only part need not be built on any random arch.
>
> See the spamoracle package on how this can be done, and it has to my
> knowledge never caused any problem with the m68k buildd.
This is where I've been looking at ;-) The only difference is that you create
an "empty" native package [1] on non-native architectures (m68k) without
ocamlopt.{opt) and this makes dpkg-genchanges happy, whilst it is not
created in ara and I got warnings that these are listed in control file but
not in debian/files (-byte packages are built ok). I should figure out why
such "empty" native package is not created with ara on these arches.
[1] spamoracle_1.4-4_i386.deb
./usr/
./usr/bin/
./usr/share/
./usr/share/man/
./usr/share/man/man1/
./usr/share/man/man5/
./usr/share/doc/
./usr/share/doc/spamoracle/
./usr/share/doc/spamoracle/copyright
./usr/share/doc/spamoracle/README.gz
./usr/share/doc/spamoracle/changelog.Debian.gz
[2] dpkg-genchanges: warning: package xara-gtk in control file but not in
files list
dpkg-genchanges: warning: package ara in control file but not in files list
dpkg-genchanges: including full source code in upload
Pls, do not CC, I'm subscribed to d-o-m@
--
pub 4096R/0E4BD0AB 2003-03-18 <people.fccf.net/danchev/key pgp.mit.edu>
fingerprint 1AE7 7C66 0A26 5BFF DF22 5D55 1C57 0C89 0E4B D0AB
Reply to: