Can we require build-arch/indep targets for lenny? - Debian

This is a discussion on Can we require build-arch/indep targets for lenny? - Debian ; Goswin von Brederlow writes: > Russ Allbery writes: >> All of my packages have build-arch and build-indep targets. None of >> them benefit from them at all. I expect many other people have >> similarly added the targets just because, ...

+ Reply to Thread
Page 4 of 4 FirstFirst ... 2 3 4
Results 61 to 65 of 65

Thread: Can we require build-arch/indep targets for lenny?

  1. Re: Can we require build-arch/indep targets for lenny?

    Goswin von Brederlow writes:
    > Russ Allbery writes:


    >> All of my packages have build-arch and build-indep targets. None of
    >> them benefit from them at all. I expect many other people have
    >> similarly added the targets just because, or have the targets provided
    >> by a build system such as CDBS, even though they don't benefit.


    > For example how many sources have a tex file that they run through
    > latex for a -doc package?


    > grep-dctrl -F Build-Depends tetex ftp.de.debian.org_debian_dists_sid_main_source_Sou rces -s Package | wc -l
    > 112


    > That alone is already 1%.


    > There might be more involved than just adding the build-arch target to
    > actualy benefit from it but I see a lot more potential than 1%.


    Oh, you mean "would possibly benefit if the maintainer restructures the
    rules accordingly" as opposed to packages which could take advantage of it
    right now. Yeah, there are more of those, but I expect few will bother.
    I have packages that generate arch-independent files, but they're done as
    part of the upstream build process, and breaking apart real build-arch and
    build-indep targets and patching the upstream build system accordingly
    isn't worth the bother for the tiny amount of time saved.

    --
    Russ Allbery (rra@debian.org)


    --
    To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-REQUEST@lists.debian.org
    with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org

  2. Re: Bug#229357: Can we require build-arch/indep targets for lenny?

    On Fri, Oct 12, 2007 at 10:49:13PM +0200, Frank Lichtenheld wrote:
    > On Sat, Sep 29, 2007 at 10:09:19PM +0200, Frank Lichtenheld wrote:
    > > On Mon, Jul 02, 2007 at 09:26:23PM -0700, Steve Langasek wrote:
    > > > Attached is a patch to dpkg which implements a check for a 'build-arch'
    > > > target using 'make -f debian/rules -qn build-arch'.


    > > Is there actually a defined semantic for make -qn ? The make info manual
    > > states:


    > > "It is an error to use more than one of these three flags [-q, -t, -n] in the same
    > > invocation of `make'."

    >
    > No answer? I would like to work on this, but someone would need to
    > answer my questions about it...


    > (explicetly sending to vorlon, too, ignoring the M-F-T)


    I have no answers for you about whether there are defined semantics for this
    use of make.

    Anyway, I thought this patch was ruled out in later discussion in the
    thread.

    --
    Steve Langasek Give me a lever long enough and a Free OS
    Debian Developer to set it on, and I can move the world.
    vorlon@debian.org http://www.debian.org/


    --
    To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-REQUEST@lists.debian.org
    with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org

  3. Bug#229357: Can we require build-arch/indep targets for lenny?

    On Sat, Sep 29, 2007 at 10:09:19PM +0200, Frank Lichtenheld wrote:
    > On Mon, Jul 02, 2007 at 09:26:23PM -0700, Steve Langasek wrote:
    > > Attached is a patch to dpkg which implements a check for a 'build-arch'
    > > target using 'make -f debian/rules -qn build-arch'.

    >
    > Is there actually a defined semantic for make -qn ? The make info manual
    > states:
    >
    > "It is an error to use more than one of these three flags [-q, -t, -n] in the same
    > invocation of `make'."


    No answer? I would like to work on this, but someone would need to
    answer my questions about it...

    (explicetly sending to vorlon, too, ignoring the M-F-T)

    Gruesse,
    --
    Frank Lichtenheld
    www: http://www.djpig.de/



    --
    To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-bugs-dist-REQUEST@lists.debian.org
    with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org

  4. Re: Bug#229357: Can we require build-arch/indep targets for lenny?

    On Fri, Oct 12, 2007 at 02:13:49PM -0700, Steve Langasek wrote:
    > On Fri, Oct 12, 2007 at 10:49:13PM +0200, Frank Lichtenheld wrote:
    > > No answer? I would like to work on this, but someone would need to
    > > answer my questions about it...

    >
    > > (explicetly sending to vorlon, too, ignoring the M-F-T)

    >
    > I have no answers for you about whether there are defined semantics for this
    > use of make.
    >
    > Anyway, I thought this patch was ruled out in later discussion in the
    > thread.


    Hmm, it was opposed by some but I don't see a consensus reached
    anywhere. Let's try to give a summary of the discussion.

    So far the proposed solutions for this problem are:

    1) Build-Options field

    As pointed out this doesn't scale very well and there is no real way to
    make it default behaviour one day. This would be the way to go though if
    it only needs to be specified for few packages (either because we think
    that few packages actually need build-arch support or because of the
    solution I propose below, combining it with autodetection).

    I'm not particulary impressed with this.

    2) Standards-Version, i.e. make it 'must' in policy

    This should work but it completly contradicts the past Debian standards
    process (according to Lucas' numbers, the new policy would currently
    only be satisfied by < 2000 packages, i.e. somewhere in the 20% region)
    and would make a solution dependant on the policy team, which is currently
    somewhat MIA...

    It would be really nice to have a policy someday that acutally matches
    reality, though.

    3) Autodetection

    Would be clearly the easiest solution if it works reliably.
    There are some problems:
    - Works only with GNU make
    - depends on a _should_ in policy, not a _must_
    (error code)
    On the other hand, according to
    http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugre...bug=229357#172 it
    mostly works, and most of the cases where it doesn't work seem
    to be the packages fault (i.e. the binary-arch target seems to
    depend on the build-indep target without actually declaring
    that dependency).


    BTW, the "correct" solution in any case would be to run checkbuilddeps
    again if we don't find build-arch support, since we need b-d-i, too.
    And *poof*, there go our buildds which brings me to the last
    solution which I think wasn't actually proposed:

    4) Adapt policy to sbuilds behaviour

    I.e. don't require b-d-i on build, but only on binary and binary-indep.



    Conclusion:

    I would be interested to gather some input from the interested persons
    regarding their exact position. I think the following questions should
    give us a good understanding or their position:
    (want == 'I want it and I also think it would be possible to do')

    1) Do you want to change sbuild to actually respect policy?
    1a) (SKIP if 'no' to 1) Before lenny's release?
    2) (SKIP if 'yes' to 1) Do you want to change policy to declare sbuild's
    behaviour official?
    3) Do you want for all packages to support build-arch in the
    nearer future (longest lenny+1) [== policy 'must']?
    4) (SKIP if 'yes' to 3) In the farer future?
    5) Do you think autodetection can work and should be used?
    6) (SKIP if 'yes' to 5) Do you think that autodetection can
    work and should be used, if packages would have the ability
    to override it if they know they get detected wrong?

    My answers are:
    YN-NNNY

    After considering all the arguments I believe that the best solution
    would be to try to implement autodetection _and_ support Build-Options
    to give maintainers the ability to override it. Build-Options is simply
    the easiest and best-working possibility, but for good behaving packages
    it should not be neccessary. And I strongly believe that after lenny's
    release dpkg-buildpackage should start to check the 'correct'
    build-dependencies according to policy (i.e. requiring b-d-i if
    build-arch is not supported).

    I would volunteer to implement the solution I propose (in the near
    future) if there are enough supporters.

    Gruesse,
    --
    Frank Lichtenheld
    www: http://www.djpig.de/


    --
    To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-REQUEST@lists.debian.org
    with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org

  5. Re: Bug#229357: Can we require build-arch/indep targets for lenny?

    Hi,

    Frank Lichtenheld schrieb:

    > 3) Autodetection


    My approach would be to have the autobuilders use "build-arch", and if
    that fails within 60 seconds, "clean" and "build".

    If "build-arch" is not implemented, it fails rather quickly, so we use
    "build" and make a note in the build log. Later, one can grep for that note.

    If it is implemented, but fails within 60 seconds, not much is lost.

    If it takes longer to fail, then it's a normal FTBFS.

    Simon


    --
    To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-REQUEST@lists.debian.org
    with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org

+ Reply to Thread
Page 4 of 4 FirstFirst ... 2 3 4