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

archive rebuilds differences compared to "normal" buildds



Hi,

Andreas Barth asked me to summarize the differences between my "rebuild
infrastructure" and the Debian buildds, since some of the differences
could be pushed to the Debian buildds. I'm reporting them here, as I'm
not sure if there's a better place for that.

I use the packaged versions of sbuild and schroot. Thanks to the
excellent work done by Roger Leigh, both really rock, and there are no
build failures caused by sbuild on !arch:all packages. (There are some
for arch:all packages, because of strange stuff people use in their
build-deps, but that should be resolved soon.) Even if it is unlikely to
happen soon, it would really be great if the Debian infrastructure could
try to use what we package.

My chroots are cleaned before each build. schroot has support for "file"
chroots, which uses tarballs that are uncompressed before the build.
(schroot also has support for lvm snapshots). It would be great if the
official buildds could use something similar, at least on the fast
arches. Last time I checked, you get a totally different list of
packages installed depending on the buildd your package is built. That
might result in different binary packages being built (additional deps,
etc)

My chroots are really minimal. I use 'debfoster -o MaxPriority=required
-o UseRecommends=no -f -n apt debfoster build-essential' when preparing
them. That doesn't cause any additional build failures.

I use a policy-rc.d file to prohibit daemons startup. No additional
build failures caused by that.
-- 
| Lucas Nussbaum
| lucas@lucas-nussbaum.net   http://www.lucas-nussbaum.net/ |
| jabber: lucas@nussbaum.fr             GPG: 1024D/023B3F4F |

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: Digital signature


Reply to: