<strong>Report forwarded</strong> to <code>debian-bugs-dist@lists.debian.org, Klee Dienes and Ian Jackson &lt;dpkg-maint@chiark.greenend.org.uk&gt;</code>:<br>
<code>Bug#10091</code>; Package <code>dpkg-dev</code>.


debian-bugs-dist@lists.debian.orgKlee Dienes and Ian Jackson <dpkg-maint@chiark.greenend.org.uk>

Subject: Bug#10091: dpkg-buildpackage order of operations
Reply-To: Brian White <bcwhite@verisim.com>, 10091@bugs.debian.org
Resent-From: Brian White <bcwhite@verisim.com>
Orignal-Sender: bcwhite
Resent-To: debian-bugs-dist@lists.debian.org
Resent-CC: Klee Dienes and Ian Jackson <dpkg-maint@chiark.greenend.org.uk>
Resent-Date: Sat, 24 May 1997 16:48:01 GMT
Resent-Message-ID: <handler.10091.B.86449219811807@bugs.debian.org>
Resent-Sender: iwj@debian.org
X-Debian-PR-Message: report 10091
X-Debian-PR-Package: dpkg-dev
X-Debian-PR-Keywords: 
X-Loop: owner@bugs.debian.org
Received: via spool by bugs@bugs.debian.org id=B.86449219811807
          (code B ref -1); Sat, 24 May 1997 16:48:01 GMT
Sender: bcwhite
Message-ID: <33871A99.64CB98AA@verisim.com>
Date: Sat, 24 May 1997 12:42:46 -0400
From: Brian White <bcwhite@verisim.com>
Organization: Verisim, Inc.  http://www.verisim.com/
X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.01 (X11; I; Linux 2.0.29 i486)
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Debian Bugs <submit@bugs.debian.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

Package: dpkg-dev
Version: 1.4.0.8

This isn't a bug...  just an idea.

Would it be possible to change "dpkg-buildpackage" such that it makes the
binary packages before the source packages?  This has two advantages I
can see:

1)  Since the maintainer has probably just finished building a binary
package and has been testing installing it, there is likely nothing to
be done for the "build" step and thus the "buildpackage" command would
take far less time.

2)  Making the source package last means that all derived files are
automaticially cleaned out and not left around.  Since "buildpackage" is
likely the very last step in the process, those derived files are
probably not going to be used for a while anyway and won't end up
forgotten about and taking up large amounts of disk space.

                                          Brian
                                 ( bcwhite@verisim.com )

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
       Touch passion when it comes your way.  It's rare enough as it is;
       don't walk away when it calls you by name.  -- Marcus (Babylon 5)




<strong>Acknowledgement sent</strong> to <code>Brian White &lt;bcwhite@verisim.com&gt;</code>:<br>
New bug report received and forwarded.  Copy sent to <code>Klee Dienes and Ian Jackson &lt;dpkg-maint@chiark.greenend.org.uk&gt;</code>.


-t

From: owner@bugs.debian.org (Ian Jackson)
To: Brian White <bcwhite@verisim.com>
Subject: Bug#10091: Acknowledgement (was: dpkg-buildpackage order of operations)
Message-ID: <handler.10091.B.86449219811807.ack@bugs.debian.org>
In-Reply-To: <33871A99.64CB98AA@verisim.com>
References: <33871A99.64CB98AA@verisim.com>
X-Debian-PR-Message: ack 10091

Thank you for the problem report you have sent regarding Debian Linux.
This is an automatically generated reply, to let you know your message has
been received.  It is being forwarded to the developers' mailing list for
their attention; they will reply in due course.

Your message has been sent to the package maintainer(s):
 Klee Dienes and Ian Jackson <dpkg-maint@chiark.greenend.org.uk>

If you wish to submit further information on your problem, please send
it to 10091@bugs.debian.org (and *not* to
bugs@bugs.debian.org).

Please do not reply to the address at the top of this message,
unless you wish to report a problem with the bug-tracking system.

Ian Jackson
(maintainer, Debian bug tracking system)



Received: (at submit) by bugs.debian.org; 24 May 1997 16:43:18 +0000
Received: (qmail 11805 invoked from network); 24 May 1997 16:43:17 -0000
Received: from gatekeeper.verisim.com (207.134.10.201)
  by master.debian.org with SMTP; 24 May 1997 16:43:16 -0000
Received: from callandor ([192.168.1.3]) by gatekeeper.verisim.com
	 with smtp id m0wVJuQ-000H33C
	(Debian Smail-3.2 1996-Jul-4 #2); Sat, 24 May 1997 12:42:50 -0400 (EDT)
Sender: bcwhite
Message-ID: <33871A99.64CB98AA@verisim.com>
Date: Sat, 24 May 1997 12:42:46 -0400
From: Brian White <bcwhite@verisim.com>
Organization: Verisim, Inc.  http://www.verisim.com/
X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.01 (X11; I; Linux 2.0.29 i486)
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Debian Bugs <submit@bugs.debian.org>
Subject: dpkg-buildpackage order of operations
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

Package: dpkg-dev
Version: 1.4.0.8

This isn't a bug...  just an idea.

Would it be possible to change "dpkg-buildpackage" such that it makes the
binary packages before the source packages?  This has two advantages I
can see:

1)  Since the maintainer has probably just finished building a binary
package and has been testing installing it, there is likely nothing to
be done for the "build" step and thus the "buildpackage" command would
take far less time.

2)  Making the source package last means that all derived files are
automaticially cleaned out and not left around.  Since "buildpackage" is
likely the very last step in the process, those derived files are
probably not going to be used for a while anyway and won't end up
forgotten about and taking up large amounts of disk space.

                                          Brian
                                 ( bcwhite@verisim.com )

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
       Touch passion when it comes your way.  It's rare enough as it is;
       don't walk away when it calls you by name.  -- Marcus (Babylon 5)




<strong>Information forwarded</strong> to <code>debian-bugs-dist@lists.debian.org, Klee Dienes and Ian Jackson &lt;dpkg-maint@chiark.greenend.org.uk&gt;</code>:<br>
<code>Bug#10091</code>; Package <code>dpkg-dev</code>.


debian-bugs-dist@lists.debian.orgKlee Dienes and Ian Jackson <dpkg-maint@chiark.greenend.org.uk>

Subject: Bug#10091: dpkg-buildpackage order of operations
Reply-To: Klee Dienes <klee@mit.edu>, 10091@bugs.debian.org
Resent-From: Klee Dienes <klee@mit.edu>
Orignal-Sender: Klee Dienes <klee@fashion-technology.com>
Resent-To: debian-bugs-dist@lists.debian.org
Resent-CC: Klee Dienes and Ian Jackson <dpkg-maint@chiark.greenend.org.uk>
Resent-Date: Sat, 24 May 1997 20:18:04 GMT
Resent-Message-ID: <handler.10091.B10091.86450485327863@bugs.debian.org>
Resent-Sender: iwj@debian.org
X-Debian-PR-Message: report 10091
X-Debian-PR-Package: dpkg-dev
X-Debian-PR-Keywords: 
X-Loop: owner@bugs.debian.org
Received: via spool by 10091-bugs@bugs.debian.org id=B10091.86450485327863
          (code B ref 10091); Sat, 24 May 1997 20:18:04 GMT
From: Klee Dienes <klee@mit.edu>
To: Brian White <bcwhite@verisim.com>
Cc: 10091@bugs.debian.org
References: <33871A99.64CB98AA@verisim.com>
Date: 24 May 1997 16:13:52 -0400
In-Reply-To: Brian White's message of Sat, 24 May 1997 12:42:46 -0400
Message-ID: <wo4enawhblr.fsf@sauron.fashion-technology.com>
Lines: 13
X-Mailer: Gnus v5.4.17/XEmacs 19.15
Sender: Klee Dienes <klee@fashion-technology.com>


One advantage to the current system is that it ensures that the system
can be built from scratch after a 'make clean'.  Especially when
porting packages for the first time, I sometimes tend to 'cheat', and
build a few of the object files by hand.  Having the 'make clean' step
makes sure that 'cheating' like this gets caught before the package is
released.

On the whole, though, I agree that the advantages to the change
outweigh the disadvantages.  Would anyone with strong opinions about
this change E-mail me privately with their reasons?  I'll summarize to
the list in a couple of days and make the change if there are no
overwhelming objections.



<strong>Acknowledgement sent</strong> to <code>Klee Dienes &lt;klee@mit.edu&gt;</code>:<br>
Extra info received and forwarded to list.  Copy sent to <code>Klee Dienes and Ian Jackson &lt;dpkg-maint@chiark.greenend.org.uk&gt;</code>.


-t

From: owner@bugs.debian.org (Ian Jackson)
To: Klee Dienes <klee@mit.edu>
Subject: Bug#10091: Info received (was Bug#10091: dpkg-buildpackage order of operations)
Message-ID: <handler.10091.B10091.86450485327863.ackinfo@bugs.debian.org>
In-Reply-To: <wo4enawhblr.fsf@sauron.fashion-technology.com>
References: <wo4enawhblr.fsf@sauron.fashion-technology.com>
X-Debian-PR-Message: ack-info-maintonly 10091

Thank you for the additional information you have supplied regarding
this problem report.  It has been forwarded to the developer(s) and
to the developers' mailing list to accompany the original report.

Your message has been sent to the package maintainer(s):
 Klee Dienes and Ian Jackson <dpkg-maint@chiark.greenend.org.uk>

If you wish to continue to submit further information on your problem,
please send it to 10091@bugs.debian.org, as before.

Please do not reply to the address at the top of this message,
unless you wish to report a problem with the bug-tracking system.

Ian Jackson
(maintainer, Debian bug tracking system)



Received: (at 10091) by bugs.debian.org; 24 May 1997 20:14:13 +0000
Received: (qmail 27861 invoked from network); 24 May 1997 20:14:11 -0000
Received: from nhv-ct2-15.ix.netcom.com (HELO sauron.fashion-technology.com) (mail@205.184.152.79)
  by master.debian.org with SMTP; 24 May 1997 20:14:10 -0000
Received: from klee by sauron.fashion-technology.com with local (Exim 1.62 #1)
	id 0wVNCK-0001uN-00 (Debian); Sat, 24 May 1997 16:13:52 -0400
From: Klee Dienes <klee@mit.edu>
Reply-To: Klee Dienes <klee@mit.edu>
To: Brian White <bcwhite@verisim.com>
Cc: 10091@bugs.debian.org
Subject: Re: Bug#10091: dpkg-buildpackage order of operations
References: <33871A99.64CB98AA@verisim.com>
Date: 24 May 1997 16:13:52 -0400
In-Reply-To: Brian White's message of Sat, 24 May 1997 12:42:46 -0400
Message-ID: <wo4enawhblr.fsf@sauron.fashion-technology.com>
Lines: 13
X-Mailer: Gnus v5.4.17/XEmacs 19.15
Sender: Klee Dienes <klee@fashion-technology.com>


One advantage to the current system is that it ensures that the system
can be built from scratch after a 'make clean'.  Especially when
porting packages for the first time, I sometimes tend to 'cheat', and
build a few of the object files by hand.  Having the 'make clean' step
makes sure that 'cheating' like this gets caught before the package is
released.

On the whole, though, I agree that the advantages to the change
outweigh the disadvantages.  Would anyone with strong opinions about
this change E-mail me privately with their reasons?  I'll summarize to
the list in a couple of days and make the change if there are no
overwhelming objections.



<strong>Information forwarded</strong> to <code>debian-bugs-dist@lists.debian.org, Klee Dienes and Ian Jackson &lt;dpkg-maint@chiark.greenend.org.uk&gt;</code>:<br>
<code>Bug#10091</code>; Package <code>dpkg-dev</code>.


debian-bugs-dist@lists.debian.orgKlee Dienes and Ian Jackson <dpkg-maint@chiark.greenend.org.uk>

Subject: Bug#10091: dpkg-buildpackage order of operations
Reply-To: Christian Schwarz <schwarz@monet.m.isar.de>, 10091@bugs.debian.org
Resent-From: Christian Schwarz <schwarz@monet.m.isar.de>
Resent-To: debian-bugs-dist@lists.debian.org
Resent-CC: Klee Dienes and Ian Jackson <dpkg-maint@chiark.greenend.org.uk>
Resent-Date: Sun, 25 May 1997 10:48:01 GMT
Resent-Message-ID: <handler.10091.B10091.8645567342926@bugs.debian.org>
Resent-Sender: iwj@debian.org
X-Debian-PR-Message: report 10091
X-Debian-PR-Package: dpkg-dev
X-Debian-PR-Keywords: 
X-Loop: owner@bugs.debian.org
Received: via spool by 10091-bugs@bugs.debian.org id=B10091.8645567342926
          (code B ref 10091); Sun, 25 May 1997 10:48:01 GMT
X-Authentication-Warning: klee.painters.net: schwarz owned process doing -bs
Date: Sun, 25 May 1997 12:17:12 +0200 (CEST)
From: Christian Schwarz <schwarz@monet.m.isar.de>
X-Sender: schwarz@klee
To: Klee Dienes <klee@mit.edu>, 10091@bugs.debian.org
In-Reply-To: <wo4enawhblr.fsf@sauron.fashion-technology.com>
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.3.96.970525121121.314B-100000@klee>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII

On 24 May 1997, Klee Dienes wrote:

> One advantage to the current system is that it ensures that the system
> can be built from scratch after a 'make clean'.  Especially when
> porting packages for the first time, I sometimes tend to 'cheat', and
> build a few of the object files by hand.  Having the 'make clean' step
> makes sure that 'cheating' like this gets caught before the package is
> released.
> 
> On the whole, though, I agree that the advantages to the change
> outweigh the disadvantages.

*WHAT* ?!?!? (sorry for shouting :)

No, I strongly object here. We already have problems that some of our
source packages can't be compiled straight of the box (for example, if
people create new directories that are not included in the .orig.tar.gz)
so I would not like to make such things even more easy!

However, I can understand Brian with his request since I had the same
problem. (My mysql package needs about 20 minutes to compile from scratch
on my P120. This surely can be reduced with such a method.)

Therefore, I suggest to have two different "modes" for dpkg-buildpackage:
a test-build mode and a production-mode. The first will only create the
.deb, without running "debian/rules clean" at all and without creating a
source package and a diff, while the latter mode will behave just what we
have now. Thus, the developer can test his package very easily but we
don't loose the consistency of our source packages.

Note that the developer will have to test the "production .deb" too, since
this might be different from the "test-build .deb", if he cheated
somewhere.


Please email me again, if you are still thinking of changing this
behaviour of dpkg-buildpackage ;-)


Thanks,

Chris

--                  Christian Schwarz
                   schwarz@monet.m.isar.de, schwarz@schwarz-online.com
                  schwarz@debian.org, schwarz@mathematik.tu-muenchen.de
                       
                PGP-fp: 8F 61 EB 6D CF 23 CA D7  34 05 14 5C C8 DC 22 BA
              
 CS Software goes online! Visit our new home page at
 	                                     http://www.schwarz-online.com




<strong>Acknowledgement sent</strong> to <code>Christian Schwarz &lt;schwarz@monet.m.isar.de&gt;</code>:<br>
Extra info received and forwarded to list.  Copy sent to <code>Klee Dienes and Ian Jackson &lt;dpkg-maint@chiark.greenend.org.uk&gt;</code>.


-t

From: owner@bugs.debian.org (Ian Jackson)
To: Christian Schwarz <schwarz@monet.m.isar.de>
Subject: Bug#10091: Info received (was Bug#10091: dpkg-buildpackage order of operations)
Message-ID: <handler.10091.B10091.8645567342926.ackinfo@bugs.debian.org>
In-Reply-To: <Pine.LNX.3.96.970525121121.314B-100000@klee>
References: <Pine.LNX.3.96.970525121121.314B-100000@klee>
X-Debian-PR-Message: ack-info-maintonly 10091

Thank you for the additional information you have supplied regarding
this problem report.  It has been forwarded to the developer(s) and
to the developers' mailing list to accompany the original report.

Your message has been sent to the package maintainer(s):
 Klee Dienes and Ian Jackson <dpkg-maint@chiark.greenend.org.uk>

If you wish to continue to submit further information on your problem,
please send it to 10091@bugs.debian.org, as before.

Please do not reply to the address at the top of this message,
unless you wish to report a problem with the bug-tracking system.

Ian Jackson
(maintainer, Debian bug tracking system)



Received: (at 10091) by bugs.debian.org; 25 May 1997 10:38:54 +0000
Received: (qmail 2924 invoked from network); 25 May 1997 10:38:53 -0000
Received: from nymphe.m.isar.de (root@193.141.69.3)
  by 206.190.143.161 with SMTP; 25 May 1997 10:38:52 -0000
Received: (from Umonet@localhost) by nymphe.m.isar.de (8.6.13/ny-1.1) with UUCP id MAA00987; Sun, 25 May 1997 12:38:47 +0200
Received: from klee.painters.net (schwarz@klee [10.1.1.8])
	by monet.painters.net (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id MAA18340;
	Sun, 25 May 1997 12:17:13 +0200
Received: from localhost (schwarz@localhost)
	by klee.painters.net (8.8.5/8.8.5) with SMTP id MAA03080;
	Sun, 25 May 1997 12:17:12 +0200
X-Authentication-Warning: klee.painters.net: schwarz owned process doing -bs
Date: Sun, 25 May 1997 12:17:12 +0200 (CEST)
From: Christian Schwarz <schwarz@monet.m.isar.de>
X-Sender: schwarz@klee
To: Klee Dienes <klee@mit.edu>, 10091@bugs.debian.org
Subject: Re: Bug#10091: dpkg-buildpackage order of operations
In-Reply-To: <wo4enawhblr.fsf@sauron.fashion-technology.com>
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.3.96.970525121121.314B-100000@klee>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII

On 24 May 1997, Klee Dienes wrote:

> One advantage to the current system is that it ensures that the system
> can be built from scratch after a 'make clean'.  Especially when
> porting packages for the first time, I sometimes tend to 'cheat', and
> build a few of the object files by hand.  Having the 'make clean' step
> makes sure that 'cheating' like this gets caught before the package is
> released.
> 
> On the whole, though, I agree that the advantages to the change
> outweigh the disadvantages.

*WHAT* ?!?!? (sorry for shouting :)

No, I strongly object here. We already have problems that some of our
source packages can't be compiled straight of the box (for example, if
people create new directories that are not included in the .orig.tar.gz)
so I would not like to make such things even more easy!

However, I can understand Brian with his request since I had the same
problem. (My mysql package needs about 20 minutes to compile from scratch
on my P120. This surely can be reduced with such a method.)

Therefore, I suggest to have two different "modes" for dpkg-buildpackage:
a test-build mode and a production-mode. The first will only create the
.deb, without running "debian/rules clean" at all and without creating a
source package and a diff, while the latter mode will behave just what we
have now. Thus, the developer can test his package very easily but we
don't loose the consistency of our source packages.

Note that the developer will have to test the "production .deb" too, since
this might be different from the "test-build .deb", if he cheated
somewhere.


Please email me again, if you are still thinking of changing this
behaviour of dpkg-buildpackage ;-)


Thanks,

Chris

--                  Christian Schwarz
                   schwarz@monet.m.isar.de, schwarz@schwarz-online.com
                  schwarz@debian.org, schwarz@mathematik.tu-muenchen.de
                       
                PGP-fp: 8F 61 EB 6D CF 23 CA D7  34 05 14 5C C8 DC 22 BA
              
 CS Software goes online! Visit our new home page at
 	                                     http://www.schwarz-online.com




<strong>Information forwarded</strong> to <code>debian-bugs-dist@lists.debian.org, Klee Dienes and Ian Jackson &lt;dpkg-maint@chiark.greenend.org.uk&gt;</code>:<br>
<code>Bug#10091</code>; Package <code>dpkg-dev</code>.


debian-bugs-dist@lists.debian.orgKlee Dienes and Ian Jackson <dpkg-maint@chiark.greenend.org.uk>

Subject: Bug#10091: dpkg-buildpackage order of operations 
Reply-To: Klee Dienes <klee@mit.edu>, 10091@bugs.debian.org
Resent-From: Klee Dienes <klee@mit.edu>
Orignal-Sender: klee@sauron.fashion-technology.com
Resent-To: debian-bugs-dist@lists.debian.org
Resent-CC: Klee Dienes and Ian Jackson <dpkg-maint@chiark.greenend.org.uk>
Resent-Date: Sun, 25 May 1997 15:03:00 GMT
Resent-Message-ID: <handler.10091.B10091.8645719505071@bugs.debian.org>
Resent-Sender: iwj@debian.org
X-Debian-PR-Message: report 10091
X-Debian-PR-Package: dpkg-dev
X-Debian-PR-Keywords: 
X-Loop: owner@bugs.debian.org
Received: via spool by 10091-bugs@bugs.debian.org id=B10091.8645719505071
          (code B ref 10091); Sun, 25 May 1997 15:03:00 GMT
From: Klee Dienes <klee@mit.edu>
To: Christian Schwarz <schwarz@monet.m.isar.de>, 10091@bugs.debian.org
In-reply-to: Your message of "Sun, 25 May 1997 12:17:12 +0200."
             <Pine.LNX.3.96.970525121121.314B-100000@klee> 
Date: Sun, 25 May 1997 10:52:16 -0400
Sender: klee@sauron.fashion-technology.com
Message-Id: <E0wVeee-0000Zl-00@sauron.fashion-technology.com>


Wow, that certainly seems to have gotten people's attention.  My
thanks to Christian as well as to the several people who E-mailed me
privately.  I'm glad to see so many people have strong feelings about
verifying the ability to build packages completely and easily from
source.

Given the number of strong objections to the change, and given that I
suspect a better solution will drop out of the source package changes
I'm working on (I'll be posting on that soon; sorry for the delay),
I'll defer this issue for a couple of weeks.

[ A note on the source package changes: recently I've seen some
messages proposing that we hold off on tasks like upgrading the
old-format source packages until the source package changes are
completed.  Please be reassured that I have no intention of changing
the source package format in a way that is not fully
backwards-compatible.  Converting old-format packages to the new
format will in fact help the effort significantly, as it will allow us
to better test the automatic distribution-building capabilities
proposed for the new tools. ]



<strong>Acknowledgement sent</strong> to <code>Klee Dienes &lt;klee@mit.edu&gt;</code>:<br>
Extra info received and forwarded to list.  Copy sent to <code>Klee Dienes and Ian Jackson &lt;dpkg-maint@chiark.greenend.org.uk&gt;</code>.


-t

From: owner@bugs.debian.org (Ian Jackson)
To: Klee Dienes <klee@mit.edu>
Subject: Bug#10091: Info received (was Bug#10091: dpkg-buildpackage order of operations )
Message-ID: <handler.10091.B10091.8645719505071.ackinfo@bugs.debian.org>
In-Reply-To: <E0wVeee-0000Zl-00@sauron.fashion-technology.com>
References: <E0wVeee-0000Zl-00@sauron.fashion-technology.com>
X-Debian-PR-Message: ack-info-maintonly 10091

Thank you for the additional information you have supplied regarding
this problem report.  It has been forwarded to the developer(s) and
to the developers' mailing list to accompany the original report.

Your message has been sent to the package maintainer(s):
 Klee Dienes and Ian Jackson <dpkg-maint@chiark.greenend.org.uk>

If you wish to continue to submit further information on your problem,
please send it to 10091@bugs.debian.org, as before.

Please do not reply to the address at the top of this message,
unless you wish to report a problem with the bug-tracking system.

Ian Jackson
(maintainer, Debian bug tracking system)



Received: (at 10091) by bugs.debian.org; 25 May 1997 14:52:30 +0000
Received: (qmail 5069 invoked from network); 25 May 1997 14:52:28 -0000
Received: from nhv-ct4-24.ix.netcom.com (HELO sauron.fashion-technology.com) (mail@205.184.152.152)
  by 206.190.143.161 with SMTP; 25 May 1997 14:52:28 -0000
Received: from sauron.fashion-technology.com [127.0.0.1] 
	by sauron.fashion-technology.com with esmtp (Exim 1.62 #1)
	id 0wVeee-0000Zl-00 (Debian); Sun, 25 May 1997 10:52:16 -0400
From: Klee Dienes <klee@mit.edu>
Reply-To: Klee Dienes <klee@mit.edu>
To: Christian Schwarz <schwarz@monet.m.isar.de>, 10091@bugs.debian.org
Subject: Re: Bug#10091: dpkg-buildpackage order of operations 
In-reply-to: Your message of "Sun, 25 May 1997 12:17:12 +0200."
             <Pine.LNX.3.96.970525121121.314B-100000@klee> 
Date: Sun, 25 May 1997 10:52:16 -0400
Sender: klee@sauron.fashion-technology.com
Message-Id: <E0wVeee-0000Zl-00@sauron.fashion-technology.com>


Wow, that certainly seems to have gotten people's attention.  My
thanks to Christian as well as to the several people who E-mailed me
privately.  I'm glad to see so many people have strong feelings about
verifying the ability to build packages completely and easily from
source.

Given the number of strong objections to the change, and given that I
suspect a better solution will drop out of the source package changes
I'm working on (I'll be posting on that soon; sorry for the delay),
I'll defer this issue for a couple of weeks.

[ A note on the source package changes: recently I've seen some
messages proposing that we hold off on tasks like upgrading the
old-format source packages until the source package changes are
completed.  Please be reassured that I have no intention of changing
the source package format in a way that is not fully
backwards-compatible.  Converting old-format packages to the new
format will in fact help the effort significantly, as it will allow us
to better test the automatic distribution-building capabilities
proposed for the new tools. ]



<strong>Information forwarded</strong> to <code>debian-bugs-dist@lists.debian.org, Klee Dienes and Ian Jackson &lt;dpkg-maint@chiark.greenend.org.uk&gt;</code>:<br>
<code>Bug#10091</code>; Package <code>dpkg-dev</code>.


debian-bugs-dist@lists.debian.orgKlee Dienes and Ian Jackson <dpkg-maint@chiark.greenend.org.uk>

Subject: Bug#10091: dpkg-buildpackage order of operations
Reply-To: Brian White <bcwhite@verisim.com>, 10091@bugs.debian.org
Resent-From: Brian White <bcwhite@verisim.com>
Orignal-Sender: bcwhite
Resent-To: debian-bugs-dist@lists.debian.org
Resent-CC: Klee Dienes and Ian Jackson <dpkg-maint@chiark.greenend.org.uk>
Resent-Date: Mon, 26 May 1997 18:03:01 GMT
Resent-Message-ID: <handler.10091.B10091.86466913619891@bugs.debian.org>
Resent-Sender: iwj@debian.org
X-Debian-PR-Message: report 10091
X-Debian-PR-Package: dpkg-dev
X-Debian-PR-Keywords: 
X-Loop: owner@bugs.debian.org
Received: via spool by 10091-bugs@bugs.debian.org id=B10091.86466913619891
          (code B ref 10091); Mon, 26 May 1997 18:03:01 GMT
Sender: bcwhite
Message-ID: <3389CD7A.43F512B5@verisim.com>
Date: Mon, 26 May 1997 13:50:30 -0400
From: Brian White <bcwhite@verisim.com>
Organization: Verisim, Inc.  http://www.verisim.com/
X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.01 (X11; I; Linux 2.0.29 i486)
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Christian Schwarz <schwarz@monet.m.isar.de>,
	10091@bugs.debian.org
References: <Pine.LNX.3.96.970525121121.314B-100000@klee>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

> No, I strongly object here. We already have problems that some of our
> source packages can't be compiled straight of the box (for example, if
> people create new directories that are not included in the .orig.tar.gz)
> so I would not like to make such things even more easy!

I can understand this, but since almost everybody (if not everybody) will
build packages by doing "debian/rules build; debian/rules binary", why
will this cause any additional problems?


> Therefore, I suggest to have two different "modes" for dpkg-buildpackage:
> a test-build mode and a production-mode. The first will only create the
> .deb, without running "debian/rules clean" at all and without creating a
> source package and a diff, while the latter mode will behave just what we
> have now. Thus, the developer can test his package very easily but we
> don't loose the consistency of our source packages.

How is this new mode different from just doing "debian/rules binary"?

                                          Brian
                                 ( bcwhite@verisim.com )

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Debian GNU/Linux!  Search it at  http://insite.verisim.com/search/debian/simple




<strong>Acknowledgement sent</strong> to <code>Brian White &lt;bcwhite@verisim.com&gt;</code>:<br>
Extra info received and forwarded to list.  Copy sent to <code>Klee Dienes and Ian Jackson &lt;dpkg-maint@chiark.greenend.org.uk&gt;</code>.


-t

From: owner@bugs.debian.org (Ian Jackson)
To: Brian White <bcwhite@verisim.com>
Subject: Bug#10091: Info received (was Bug#10091: dpkg-buildpackage order of operations)
Message-ID: <handler.10091.B10091.86466913619891.ackinfo@bugs.debian.org>
In-Reply-To: <3389CD7A.43F512B5@verisim.com>
References: <3389CD7A.43F512B5@verisim.com>
X-Debian-PR-Message: ack-info-maintonly 10091

Thank you for the additional information you have supplied regarding
this problem report.  It has been forwarded to the developer(s) and
to the developers' mailing list to accompany the original report.

Your message has been sent to the package maintainer(s):
 Klee Dienes and Ian Jackson <dpkg-maint@chiark.greenend.org.uk>

If you wish to continue to submit further information on your problem,
please send it to 10091@bugs.debian.org, as before.

Please do not reply to the address at the top of this message,
unless you wish to report a problem with the bug-tracking system.

Ian Jackson
(maintainer, Debian bug tracking system)



Received: (at 10091) by bugs.debian.org; 26 May 1997 17:52:16 +0000
Received: (qmail 19889 invoked from network); 26 May 1997 17:52:15 -0000
Received: from gatekeeper.verisim.com (207.134.10.201)
  by master.debian.org with SMTP; 26 May 1997 17:52:15 -0000
Received: from callandor ([192.168.1.3]) by gatekeeper.verisim.com
	 with smtp id m0wW3vf-000H33C
	(Debian Smail-3.2 1996-Jul-4 #2); Mon, 26 May 1997 13:51:11 -0400 (EDT)
Sender: bcwhite
Message-ID: <3389CD7A.43F512B5@verisim.com>
Date: Mon, 26 May 1997 13:50:30 -0400
From: Brian White <bcwhite@verisim.com>
Organization: Verisim, Inc.  http://www.verisim.com/
X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.01 (X11; I; Linux 2.0.29 i486)
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Christian Schwarz <schwarz@monet.m.isar.de>,
	10091@bugs.debian.org
Subject: Re: Bug#10091: dpkg-buildpackage order of operations
References: <Pine.LNX.3.96.970525121121.314B-100000@klee>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

> No, I strongly object here. We already have problems that some of our
> source packages can't be compiled straight of the box (for example, if
> people create new directories that are not included in the .orig.tar.gz)
> so I would not like to make such things even more easy!

I can understand this, but since almost everybody (if not everybody) will
build packages by doing "debian/rules build; debian/rules binary", why
will this cause any additional problems?


> Therefore, I suggest to have two different "modes" for dpkg-buildpackage:
> a test-build mode and a production-mode. The first will only create the
> .deb, without running "debian/rules clean" at all and without creating a
> source package and a diff, while the latter mode will behave just what we
> have now. Thus, the developer can test his package very easily but we
> don't loose the consistency of our source packages.

How is this new mode different from just doing "debian/rules binary"?

                                          Brian
                                 ( bcwhite@verisim.com )

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Debian GNU/Linux!  Search it at  http://insite.verisim.com/search/debian/simple




<strong>Information forwarded</strong> to <code>debian-bugs-dist@lists.debian.org, Klee Dienes and Ian Jackson &lt;dpkg-maint@chiark.greenend.org.uk&gt;</code>:<br>
<code>Bug#10091</code>; Package <code>dpkg-dev</code>.


debian-bugs-dist@lists.debian.orgKlee Dienes and Ian Jackson <dpkg-maint@chiark.greenend.org.uk>

Subject: Bug#10091: dpkg-buildpackage order of operations
Reply-To: Christian Schwarz <schwarz@monet.m.isar.de>, 10091@bugs.debian.org
Resent-From: Christian Schwarz <schwarz@monet.m.isar.de>
Resent-To: debian-bugs-dist@lists.debian.org
Resent-CC: Klee Dienes and Ian Jackson <dpkg-maint@chiark.greenend.org.uk>
Resent-Date: Mon, 26 May 1997 19:03:03 GMT
Resent-Message-ID: <handler.10091.B10091.86467253920922@bugs.debian.org>
Resent-Sender: iwj@debian.org
X-Debian-PR-Message: report 10091
X-Debian-PR-Package: dpkg-dev
X-Debian-PR-Keywords: 
X-Loop: owner@bugs.debian.org
Received: via spool by 10091-bugs@bugs.debian.org id=B10091.86467253920922
          (code B ref 10091); Mon, 26 May 1997 19:03:03 GMT
X-Authentication-Warning: klee.painters.net: schwarz owned process doing -bs
Date: Mon, 26 May 1997 20:25:16 +0200 (CEST)
From: Christian Schwarz <schwarz@monet.m.isar.de>
X-Sender: schwarz@klee
To: Brian White <bcwhite@verisim.com>
cc: 10091@bugs.debian.org
In-Reply-To: <3389CD7A.43F512B5@verisim.com>
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.3.96.970526202007.13629C-100000@klee>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII

On Mon, 26 May 1997, Brian White wrote:

> > No, I strongly object here. We already have problems that some of our
> > source packages can't be compiled straight of the box (for example, if
> > people create new directories that are not included in the .orig.tar.gz)
> > so I would not like to make such things even more easy!
> 
> I can understand this, but since almost everybody (if not everybody) will
> build packages by doing "debian/rules build; debian/rules binary", why
> will this cause any additional problems?

Are you sure people use this method? We really should write more
documentation :-) In the past I used `dpkg-buildpackage -rsudo' which does
all necessary things for the upload, for example PGP signing etc. 

But now I use Christoph's "build" program. I just run "sudo build" and
everything is fine.

But you are right, for testing purposes "debian/rules build; debian/rules
binary" is enough. (I just realized that I built a very complicated shell
script from the dpkg-buildpackage sources just to run these two commands
;-)


Cheers,

Chris

--                  Christian Schwarz
                     schwarz@monet.m.isar.de, schwarz@schwarz-online.com,
Debian is looking     schwarz@debian.org, schwarz@mathematik.tu-muenchen.de
for a logo! Have a
look at our drafts     PGP-fp: 8F 61 EB 6D CF 23 CA D7  34 05 14 5C C8 DC 22 BA
at    http://fatman.mathematik.tu-muenchen.de/~schwarz/debian-logo/




<strong>Acknowledgement sent</strong> to <code>Christian Schwarz &lt;schwarz@monet.m.isar.de&gt;</code>:<br>
Extra info received and forwarded to list.  Copy sent to <code>Klee Dienes and Ian Jackson &lt;dpkg-maint@chiark.greenend.org.uk&gt;</code>.


-t

From: owner@bugs.debian.org (Ian Jackson)
To: Christian Schwarz <schwarz@monet.m.isar.de>
Subject: Bug#10091: Info received (was Bug#10091: dpkg-buildpackage order of operations)
Message-ID: <handler.10091.B10091.86467253920922.ackinfo@bugs.debian.org>
In-Reply-To: <Pine.LNX.3.96.970526202007.13629C-100000@klee>
References: <Pine.LNX.3.96.970526202007.13629C-100000@klee>
X-Debian-PR-Message: ack-info-maintonly 10091

Thank you for the additional information you have supplied regarding
this problem report.  It has been forwarded to the developer(s) and
to the developers' mailing list to accompany the original report.

Your message has been sent to the package maintainer(s):
 Klee Dienes and Ian Jackson <dpkg-maint@chiark.greenend.org.uk>

If you wish to continue to submit further information on your problem,
please send it to 10091@bugs.debian.org, as before.

Please do not reply to the address at the top of this message,
unless you wish to report a problem with the bug-tracking system.

Ian Jackson
(maintainer, Debian bug tracking system)



Received: (at 10091) by bugs.debian.org; 26 May 1997 18:48:59 +0000
Received: (qmail 20907 invoked from network); 26 May 1997 18:48:55 -0000
Received: from nymphe.m.isar.de (root@193.141.69.3)
  by master.debian.org with SMTP; 26 May 1997 18:48:54 -0000
Received: (from Umonet@localhost) by nymphe.m.isar.de (8.6.13/ny-1.1) with UUCP id UAA16380; Mon, 26 May 1997 20:48:49 +0200
Received: from klee.painters.net (schwarz@klee [10.1.1.8])
	by monet.painters.net (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id UAA21012;
	Mon, 26 May 1997 20:25:19 +0200
Received: from localhost (schwarz@localhost)
	by klee.painters.net (8.8.5/8.8.5) with SMTP id UAA13767;
	Mon, 26 May 1997 20:25:18 +0200
X-Authentication-Warning: klee.painters.net: schwarz owned process doing -bs
Date: Mon, 26 May 1997 20:25:16 +0200 (CEST)
From: Christian Schwarz <schwarz@monet.m.isar.de>
X-Sender: schwarz@klee
To: Brian White <bcwhite@verisim.com>
cc: 10091@bugs.debian.org
Subject: Re: Bug#10091: dpkg-buildpackage order of operations
In-Reply-To: <3389CD7A.43F512B5@verisim.com>
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.3.96.970526202007.13629C-100000@klee>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII

On Mon, 26 May 1997, Brian White wrote:

> > No, I strongly object here. We already have problems that some of our
> > source packages can't be compiled straight of the box (for example, if
> > people create new directories that are not included in the .orig.tar.gz)
> > so I would not like to make such things even more easy!
> 
> I can understand this, but since almost everybody (if not everybody) will
> build packages by doing "debian/rules build; debian/rules binary", why
> will this cause any additional problems?

Are you sure people use this method? We really should write more
documentation :-) In the past I used `dpkg-buildpackage -rsudo' which does
all necessary things for the upload, for example PGP signing etc. 

But now I use Christoph's "build" program. I just run "sudo build" and
everything is fine.

But you are right, for testing purposes "debian/rules build; debian/rules
binary" is enough. (I just realized that I built a very complicated shell
script from the dpkg-buildpackage sources just to run these two commands
;-)


Cheers,

Chris

--                  Christian Schwarz
                     schwarz@monet.m.isar.de, schwarz@schwarz-online.com,
Debian is looking     schwarz@debian.org, schwarz@mathematik.tu-muenchen.de
for a logo! Have a
look at our drafts     PGP-fp: 8F 61 EB 6D CF 23 CA D7  34 05 14 5C C8 DC 22 BA
at    http://fatman.mathematik.tu-muenchen.de/~schwarz/debian-logo/




<strong>Information forwarded</strong> to <code>debian-bugs-dist@lists.debian.org, Klee Dienes and Ian Jackson &lt;dpkg-maint@chiark.greenend.org.uk&gt;</code>:<br>
<code>Bug#10091</code>; Package <code>dpkg-dev</code>.


debian-bugs-dist@lists.debian.orgKlee Dienes and Ian Jackson <dpkg-maint@chiark.greenend.org.uk>

Subject: Bug#10091: dpkg-buildpackage order of operations
Reply-To: "Christian Hudon" <chudon@ee.mcgill.ca>, 10091@bugs.debian.org
Resent-From: "Christian Hudon" <chudon@ee.mcgill.ca>
Resent-To: debian-bugs-dist@lists.debian.org
Resent-CC: Klee Dienes and Ian Jackson <dpkg-maint@chiark.greenend.org.uk>
Resent-Date: Mon, 26 May 1997 20:33:02 GMT
Resent-Message-ID: <handler.10091.B10091.8646785094090@bugs.debian.org>
Resent-Sender: iwj@debian.org
X-Debian-PR-Message: report 10091
X-Debian-PR-Package: dpkg-dev
X-Debian-PR-Keywords: 
X-Loop: owner@bugs.debian.org
Received: via spool by 10091-bugs@bugs.debian.org id=B10091.8646785094090
          (code B ref 10091); Mon, 26 May 1997 20:33:02 GMT
From: "Christian Hudon" <chudon@ee.mcgill.ca>
Message-ID: <19970526162738.31435@pianocktail.org>
Date: Mon, 26 May 1997 16:27:38 +0000
To: Christian Schwarz <schwarz@monet.m.isar.de>, 10091@bugs.debian.org
Cc: Brian White <bcwhite@verisim.com>
References: <3389CD7A.43F512B5@verisim.com> <Pine.LNX.3.96.970526202007.13629C-100000@klee>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/signed; protocol="application/pgp-signature";
	micalg=pgp-md5; boundary=LPg7ZWsaic7FhdLK
X-Mailer: Mutt 0.73
In-Reply-To: <Pine.LNX.3.96.970526202007.13629C-100000@klee>; from "Christian Schwarz" on Mon, May 26, 1997 at 08:25:16PM +0200


--LPg7ZWsaic7FhdLK
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii

On May 26, Christian Schwarz wrote
> 
> But you are right, for testing purposes "debian/rules build; debian/rules
> binary" is enough. (I just realized that I built a very complicated shell
> script from the dpkg-buildpackage sources just to run these two commands
> ;-)

Make that "debian/rules binary". I don't know about your Debian packages,
but in all of mine, the 'binary' target depends on the 'build' target. And
I think that's what the Debian Programmer/Policy Manual mandates too.

  Christian

--LPg7ZWsaic7FhdLK
Content-Type: application/pgp-signature

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: 2.6.3i

iQCVAwUBM4m5+Y4/+LDuJkz5AQFb0gQApCikkWBlupyaqgAhjLUW3vTm6a4gWNAP
vHpuaVk5pYIgcf5IQzx8RvJxGGcuZXHK+w3iKQYw2LKOdgIwu8ZKhMmgRJcatPhS
4RCi6nqSxYQU3XMbJV96izSd+9XUgmoYfsJEYl97x3BFHS/xLmzlaqyKYBclU1+l
Nlr9VSVsxxI=
=nHYt
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

--LPg7ZWsaic7FhdLK--



<strong>Acknowledgement sent</strong> to <code>&quot;Christian Hudon&quot; &lt;chudon@ee.mcgill.ca&gt;</code>:<br>
Extra info received and forwarded to list.  Copy sent to <code>Klee Dienes and Ian Jackson &lt;dpkg-maint@chiark.greenend.org.uk&gt;</code>.


-t

From: owner@bugs.debian.org (Ian Jackson)
To: "Christian Hudon" <chudon@ee.mcgill.ca>
Subject: Bug#10091: Info received (was Bug#10091: dpkg-buildpackage order of operations)
Message-ID: <handler.10091.B10091.8646785094090.ackinfo@bugs.debian.org>
In-Reply-To: <19970526162738.31435@pianocktail.org>
References: <19970526162738.31435@pianocktail.org>
X-Debian-PR-Message: ack-info-maintonly 10091

Thank you for the additional information you have supplied regarding
this problem report.  It has been forwarded to the developer(s) and
to the developers' mailing list to accompany the original report.

Your message has been sent to the package maintainer(s):
 Klee Dienes and Ian Jackson <dpkg-maint@chiark.greenend.org.uk>

If you wish to continue to submit further information on your problem,
please send it to 10091@bugs.debian.org, as before.

Please do not reply to the address at the top of this message,
unless you wish to report a problem with the bug-tracking system.

Ian Jackson
(maintainer, Debian bug tracking system)



Received: (at 10091) by bugs.debian.org; 26 May 1997 20:28:29 +0000
Received: (qmail 4088 invoked from network); 26 May 1997 20:28:27 -0000
Received: from ppp-5200-0119.mtl.total.net (HELO pianocktail.org) (205.236.86.33)
  by master.debian.org with SMTP; 26 May 1997 20:28:26 -0000
Received: (qmail 2115 invoked by uid 501); 26 May 1997 16:27:38 -0000
From: "Christian Hudon" <chudon@ee.mcgill.ca>
Message-ID: <19970526162738.31435@pianocktail.org>
Date: Mon, 26 May 1997 16:27:38 +0000
To: Christian Schwarz <schwarz@monet.m.isar.de>, 10091@bugs.debian.org
Cc: Brian White <bcwhite@verisim.com>
Subject: Re: Bug#10091: dpkg-buildpackage order of operations
References: <3389CD7A.43F512B5@verisim.com> <Pine.LNX.3.96.970526202007.13629C-100000@klee>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/signed; protocol="application/pgp-signature";
	micalg=pgp-md5; boundary=LPg7ZWsaic7FhdLK
X-Mailer: Mutt 0.73
In-Reply-To: <Pine.LNX.3.96.970526202007.13629C-100000@klee>; from "Christian Schwarz" on Mon, May 26, 1997 at 08:25:16PM +0200


--LPg7ZWsaic7FhdLK
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii

On May 26, Christian Schwarz wrote
> 
> But you are right, for testing purposes "debian/rules build; debian/rules
> binary" is enough. (I just realized that I built a very complicated shell
> script from the dpkg-buildpackage sources just to run these two commands
> ;-)

Make that "debian/rules binary". I don't know about your Debian packages,
but in all of mine, the 'binary' target depends on the 'build' target. And
I think that's what the Debian Programmer/Policy Manual mandates too.

  Christian

--LPg7ZWsaic7FhdLK
Content-Type: application/pgp-signature

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: 2.6.3i

iQCVAwUBM4m5+Y4/+LDuJkz5AQFb0gQApCikkWBlupyaqgAhjLUW3vTm6a4gWNAP
vHpuaVk5pYIgcf5IQzx8RvJxGGcuZXHK+w3iKQYw2LKOdgIwu8ZKhMmgRJcatPhS
4RCi6nqSxYQU3XMbJV96izSd+9XUgmoYfsJEYl97x3BFHS/xLmzlaqyKYBclU1+l
Nlr9VSVsxxI=
=nHYt
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

--LPg7ZWsaic7FhdLK--



<strong>Severity set to `wishlist'.</strong>
Request was from <code>Ian Jackson &lt;ijackson@chiark.greenend.org.uk&gt;</code>
to <code>control@bugs.debian.org</code>. 


Received: (at control) by bugs.debian.org; 6 Sep 1997 00:29:08 +0000
Received: (qmail 6827 invoked from network); 6 Sep 1997 00:29:07 -0000
Received: from chiark.greenend.org.uk (root@chiark.greenend.org.uk@195.224.76.132)
  by 205.229.104.5 with SMTP; 6 Sep 1997 00:29:07 -0000
Received: by chiark.greenend.org.uk
	id m0x78kc-0004oGC
	(Debian /\oo/\ Smail3.1.29.1 #29.37); Sat, 6 Sep 97 01:29 BST
Message-Id: <m0x78kc-0004oGC@chiark.greenend.org.uk>
Date: Sat, 6 Sep 97 01:29 BST
From: Ian Jackson <ijackson@chiark.greenend.org.uk>
To: Debian bugs control server <control@bugs.debian.org>
Subject: dpkg bug severities

merge 2904 9833
severity 957 wishlist
severity 1555 wishlist
merge 1797 5639 6842 6843 7956
severity 1797 grave
severity 1921 wishlist
retitle 2701 conffiles purge / directory removal ordering bug
merge 2701 2911 7012 8391 11047
close 2894
close 11073
reassign 11074 dpkg-ftp
severity 11228 wishlist
merge 11246 11385
close 2929
close 3225
close 3406
close 3407
close 4093
reassign 4319 netbase
severity 4448 wishlist
merge 4451 4449 1037 6394 6709 6757 7093 11868
severity 11992 wishlist
merge 12187 11341
severity 11341 wishlist
retitle 12505 /usr/doc/dpkg/{internals,index}.html identical
reassign 4515 perl
merge 4474 1037
close 4561
close 4584
# binary file diffs:
merge 4588 4628 6871
reassign 4784 general
close 4808
close 4848
merge 4863 3170
close 4877
close 4936
retitle 4974 dpkg -s exit status 0 for nonexistent package
retitle 5380 dselect does not support frozen distribution
merge 9355 5380
merge 4895 5450
close 10049
severity 10091 wishlist
severity 10452 wishlist
merge 10433 10259 10494
reassign 10259 bash
close 5640
close 5733
merge 6007 1399
close 6383
close 6435
close 6452
close 6482
severity 6486 wishlist
close 6736
severity 7128 wishlist
severity 7389 wishlist
severity 7540 wishlist
reassign 7606 dpkg-ftp
severity 7692 wishlist
reassign 7813 dpkg-ftp
reassign 8554 dpkg-ftp
severity 8639 wishlist
close 8893
reassign 9217 dpkg-mountable
retitle 5807 dpkg-source .tmp-nest bug
merge 4641 5807
severity 5983 wishlist
retitle 5868 syslogd/start-stop-daemon/TERM handling
retitle 5536 dpkg-deb --no-check problem
reassign 4895 dpkg-ftp
severity 4950 wishlist
severity 4588 wishlist
severity 1037 wishlist



<strong>Bug closed, ack sent to submitter - they'd better know why !</strong>
Request was from <code>Ben Collins &lt;bcollins@debian.org&gt;</code>
to <code>control@bugs.debian.org</code>. 


Received: (at control) by bugs.debian.org; 22 Oct 1999 01:57:13 +0000
Received: (qmail 32092 invoked from network); 22 Oct 1999 01:57:12 -0000
Received: from ppp08.ts2-3.newportnews.visi.net (HELO lappy.djj.state.va.us) (209.8.197.136)
  by master.debian.org with SMTP; 22 Oct 1999 01:57:12 -0000
Received: from bmc by lappy.djj.state.va.us with local (Exim 3.03 #1 (Debian))
	for control@bugs.debian.org
	id 11eU0Q-000058-00; Thu, 21 Oct 1999 22:00:34 -0400
Date: Thu, 21 Oct 1999 22:00:34 -0400
From: Ben Collins <bcollins@debian.org>
To: control@bugs.debian.org
Subject: now on to dpkg-dev bugs...
Message-ID: <19991021220034.A206@lappy.djj.state.va.us>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
User-Agent: Mutt/1.0pre4i

reassign 16443 dpkg-iwj

severity 17775 wishlist

reassign 35078 dpkg-iwj

reassign 24613 dpkg-iwj

# Actually looking up by exact entry is better for PGP/GPG key
# lookups, IMO. Adding the proper entry to your key ID is the
# appropriate thing to do.
close 41794

reassign 16415 dpkg-iwj

reassign 15761 dpkg-iwj

reassign 4524 dpkg-iwj

# Not a bug
close 4525

reassign 5355 dpkg-iwj

# These are fixed, and old
close 7399
close 20909
close 6134

reassign 11154 dpkg-iwj

merge 39348 12505

reassign 20909 dpkg-iwj

# Not a bug, actually a bad idea for technical reasons
close 10405

reassign 4681 dpkg-iwj

reassign 23342 dpkg-iwj

# I think this is a non-issue now with the current dpkg,
# not sure about the pure source though
reassign 5044 dpkg-iwj

reassign 11093 dpkg
severity 11093 wishlist
merge 11093 39490
merge 11093

# Very old bug, back from some pre-feature days, all the issues
# seem to be resolved now
close 10091

# IMO, unsuffixed share libraries (ones without sonames) is a policy
# issue, not a dpkg one
reassign 34610 debian-policy

# This was resolved with the -b and -B options to dpkg-buildpackage
close 15288

reassign 10175 dpkg-iwj

reassign 21581 dpkg-iwj

# Appears to be fixed, not sure if it is in the pure-source though
reassign 24621 dpkg-iwj

reassign 20776 dpkg-iwj

reassign 21186 dpkg-iwj

# I hate to do this since it was a nice script, but it's actually obsolete
# by current tools (shows what not checking bug reports does)
close 13220

# IMO, this isn't a bug, the -sa option fixes it just nicely. dpkg-buildpackage
# can't be expected to know all cases which require a new source, especially
# WRT NMU's
close 25764

reassign 10825 dpkg-iwj

reassign 14341 dpkg-iwj

reassign 12260 dpkg-iwj

reassign 35961 dpkg-iwj

close 47227

# There was a fix in the kernel for this NFS problem
close 26512

reassign 24714 dpkg-iwj

reassign 37860 kernel-package

reassign 7399 debian-keyring

reassign 13283 dpkg-iwj

stop

That's it for today kids, tune in tomorrow when we learn to baste cow meat
over a slow simmering fire.

Ben