[buildd-tools-devel] Bug#827315: Workaround

[Johannes Schauer]

Hi,

Quoting Salvatore Bonaccorso (2016-08-16 13:22:39)
> But I (note: personal view!) don't think it would be a good practice to force
> users to use backports. It is naturally that e.g. buildds are running on
> stable, with packages from stable and they then build as well for unstable.
> Currently the buildds have installed:
> 
> sbuild (Debian sbuild) 0.65.2 (24 Mar 2015) on binet.debian.org
> 
> https://buildd.debian.org/status/fetch.php?pkg=linux&arch=amd64&ver=4.6.4-1&stamp=1468929143
> https://buildd.debian.org/status/fetch.php?pkg=mutt&arch=amd64&ver=1.6.2-2&stamp=1471193283
> 
> to take examples from amd64 buildds.

the buildds are running a fork of sbuild. Buildd maintainers add patches to
their fork as is required. They are not using the stock sbuild that comes with
Debian stable.

> So in Debian we need to be able to build unstable on the buildds on a stable
> running system.

You might have noticed that despite this bug, buildds kept on churning with
their "old" version.

> It is the same in my case, my build host is running stable, but I build there
> both unstable and jessie (and when it was still supported even for wheezy).

If you want to include sbuild in a point release, I'm not stopping you from
discussing this option with the release team.

Thanks!

cheers, josch
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 819 bytes
Desc: signature
URL: <http://lists.alioth.debian.org/pipermail/buildd-tools-devel/attachments/20160816/c1096f03/attachment.sig>