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

Bug#138409: PROPOSAL] Add build environment data to <package>.changes files

>>"Randolph" == Randolph Chung <tausq@debian.org> writes:

 Randolph> Proposal: This is a proposal to add information about a
 Randolph> package's build environment to the "changes" file that
 Randolph> accompanies the upload of each package. The build
 Randolph> environment information contains the versions of packages
 Randolph> used to build the given package. The inclusion of this
 Randolph> information is mandatory.  (for packages that declare a
 Randolph> sufficiently high standards version, of course)

	You can't introduce a new mandatory requirement, making all
 packages instantly buggy. You need a transition plan. And the bit
 about standards version is a red herring, really: packages are
 supposed to be current with policy (which is why policy froze) -- it
 is just that stable releases have packages that conform to policy as
 it existed then. Packages in Sid need to be current (can't claim
 ancient policy versions in unstable and not fix bugs, for example)

 Randolph> A new packaging helper tool will be created, hereby refered to as
 Randolph> dpkg-buildinfo.

	Why is this functionality not to be added to dpkg --build? Why
 require all packages to be touched when you can automagically get the
 desired result by changing the packaging tools? Or perhaps it should
 be in dpkg-gencontrol? (I don't see why this _has_ to go into the
 changes file, and not a new file designed for this to facilitate pre
 install checks). Indeed, having it available for preinstall checks in
 an automated fashion may be extremely useful once tools are developed
 to ensure build environment consistency. 

	Second, a formal policy proposal is way immature at this
 point. Take this over to -devel, discuss the implementation details,
 talk to dpkg maintainers, and come up with a working prototype of a
 dpkg-gencontrol/dpkg --build (in which case you do not need either a
 transition plan, or even a policy change)

	Indeed, mandating policy is a far worse way technically than a
 transparent change of the build tool chain.

 It is impossible to enjoy idling thoroughly unless one has plenty of
 work to do. Jerome Klapka Jerome
Manoj Srivastava   <srivasta@debian.org>  <http://www.debian.org/%7Esrivasta/>
1024R/C7261095 print CB D9 F4 12 68 07 E4 05  CC 2D 27 12 1D F5 E8 6E
1024D/BF24424C print 4966 F272 D093 B493 410B  924B 21BA DABB BF24 424C

Reply to: