Re: Best way to handle circular build deps to make a pypy- package
Hello,
Pierre-Elliott Bécue, le mer. 15 août 2018 15:47:36 +0200, a ecrit:
> So I found a way to build locally, using your suggestions. In my case I
> guess I could upload directly the output of the nocheck build as the bin
> package isn't altered.
Yes, but better request a binnmu after the upload, to be sure.
> But how should I handle the upload in the archive in a general case? Let's
> imagine my profile produces a different bin package, eg if foo -> bar (for
> specific foo functionalities) -> foo, so with a stage1 foo, then a stage1
> bar and then a stage2 foo, how should I proceed? Do all the builds locally
> and upload the packages obtained from the last build?
AIUI it is usually preferred to upload as few manually-built packages as
possible, and thus you'd upload stage1 foo, let bar be built, and
request a binmu for stage2 foo.
> On the other hand, let's assume one wants to do a sourceful upload, and not
> upload the .deb files (I know this is not possible when one introduces a new
> package in the archive), then the buildd farm couldn't succeed because the
> nocheck wouldn't be taken into account. So this means profile builds
> systematically require source + binary upload?
If the profile-specific build really is needed, yes. In practice, once
the loop is broken it's not needed since you already have a stage1 bar
to build with and so you can just let builds happen. It's then only for
new archs that a bootstrap is needed (and keeping the profile available
for doing it is really useful for porters to just do it themselves).
Samuel
Reply to: