Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > linux.debian.maint.python > #10808
| From | Samuel Thibault <sthibault@debian.org> |
|---|---|
| Newsgroups | linux.debian.maint.python |
| Subject | Re: Best way to handle circular build deps to make a pypy- package |
| Date | 2018-08-15 17:40 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <wn63T-HN-3@gated-at.bofh.it> (permalink) |
| References | <wn1QC-6Qe-27@gated-at.bofh.it> <wn20h-6Tj-3@gated-at.bofh.it> <wn3Sp-7Y8-1@gated-at.bofh.it> <wn4ls-87p-3@gated-at.bofh.it> |
| Organization | I am not organized |
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
Back to linux.debian.maint.python | Previous | Next — Previous in thread | Next in thread | Find similar | Unroll thread
Best way to handle circular build deps to make a pypy- package Pierre-Elliott Bécue <becue@crans.org> - 2018-08-15 13:10 +0200
Re: Best way to handle circular build deps to make a pypy- package Ghislain Vaillant <ghisvail@gmail.com> - 2018-08-15 13:20 +0200
Re: Best way to handle circular build deps to make a pypy- package Samuel Thibault <sthibault@debian.org> - 2018-08-15 13:20 +0200
Re: Best way to handle circular build deps to make a pypy- package Pierre-Elliott Bécue <becue@crans.org> - 2018-08-15 15:20 +0200
Re: Best way to handle circular build deps to make a pypy- package Pierre-Elliott Bécue <becue@crans.org> - 2018-08-15 15:50 +0200
Re: Best way to handle circular build deps to make a pypy- package Samuel Thibault <sthibault@debian.org> - 2018-08-15 17:40 +0200
Re: Best way to handle circular build deps to make a pypy- package Thomas Goirand <zigo@debian.org> - 2018-08-20 16:30 +0200
Re: Best way to handle circular build deps to make a pypy- package Pierre-Elliott Bécue <becue@crans.org> - 2018-08-20 18:50 +0200
csiph-web