On 2023-08-14 10:19 -0400, Michael Stone wrote: > On Thu, Aug 10, 2023 at 02:38:17PM +0200, Lucas Nussbaum wrote: > > On 08/08/23 at 10:26 +0200, Helmut Grohne wrote: > > > Are we ready to call for consensus on dropping the requirement that > > > `debian/rules clean; dpkg-source -b` shall work or is anyone interested > > > in sending lots of patches for this? > > > > My reading of the discussion is that there's sufficient interest for > > ensuring that building-source-after-successful-binary-build works. > > my reading said that there was interest in making sure that binary builds > work repeatedly, and almost no interest in making sure that building source > from a rules/clean works. certainly not thousands of packages worth of busy > work level of interest. Yes. You are right. I (and most of the others who expressed an interest in having this working) mostly care about doing a binary build repeatedly. But doesn't this amount to much the same thing? dpkg-source will moan if the source has changed and tell you about the nice patch it has made. OK, it will let some things slide as just warnings, so 'builds binary twice' is a somewhat less stringent target than 'leaves exactly the original pristine source'. I would have to check the details, but I'm not sure how much difference this makes in practice? But yeah, I can live with the clean only cleaning well enough to do correct binary builds (although I do think it should clean enough to make correct sources too in general). Wookey -- Principal hats: Debian, Wookware, ARM http://wookware.org/
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature