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

edos-distcheck instead of AutoDepwait


today in the bus, I revived the idea of using edos-debcheck within
wanna-build to see whether a source package is installable on a given
architecture. I started to work on it, and a first preliminary version
is ready. You can have a look at it on

These changes introduce a new state, "DB-Uninstallable", which indicates
that the build-dependencies can not be satisfied. Upon each call to
--merge-all (which happens regularly, right?), packages in the states
Needs-Build and BD-Uninstallable will be checked for the installability
of their build-dependencies. The reason is stored as well (edos-debcheck
_does_ give reasons for uninstallable).

It needs a slightly modified version of edos-builddepends, called
wb-edos-builddepends. These changes can probably be merged upstream and
enabled with a flag. To test it, you need to symlink this binary
to /usr/local/bin, as wanna-build sets a static PATH (or change that).

I also started (as you saw) a little testscript to reproducible test
wanna-builds behaviour in a clean environment. It uses some perl hackery
to make it use a different configuration file, and only touches files
in ./tests/tmp. The state in the master branch only tests the current
Auto-Dep-Waits code (which I then replaced), but of course it can be
extended. The version in the master branch can be merged independently
from the edos-feature.

I’d be grateful if you could give early feedback, so that I don’t
program in a direction that will not be acceptable by you.


I based my work on the version of edos-debcheck in unstable.
Additionally, I filed two bugs against edos-distcheck that should be
fixed before starting to use it, although they are not really critical:

Joachim "nomeata" Breitner
Debian Developer
  nomeata@debian.org | ICQ# 74513189 | GPG-Keyid: 4743206C
  JID: nomeata@joachim-breitner.de | http://people.debian.org/~nomeata

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: Dies ist ein digital signierter Nachrichtenteil

Reply to: