On Dom, 2013-06-02 at 20:56 +0100, Sérgio Basto wrote: > On Ter, 2013-05-07 at 14:07 +0300, Oron Peled wrote: > > On Wednesday 01 May 2013 22:21:20 Richard W.M. Jones wrote: > > > On Wed, May 01, 2013 at 03:00:34AM +0100, Sérgio Basto wrote: > > > > https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=591190 > > > I'm prepared to take debhelper. But: > > > (1) It looks like the latest package is over 1 year old. I think a > > > newer package should be presented (in this bug or in a newly opened > > > one). > > > (2) Can debhelper be used to make .deb's on a Fedora host? If it > > > works, that would currently be very interesting to me. > > > > I'll start with (2): > > * I can build .deb's on Fedora using pbuilder/pdebuild. > > > > * Here is the tree of RR for making it work: > > https://bugzilla.redhat.com/showdependencytree.cgi?id=591388 > > > > * Credit goes to Jeroen van Meeuwen. I just joined to help move it forward > > [ with very little success so far, mind you :-( ] > > > > * And yes, I think it makes Fedora a better development platform if you can > > use it to build both rpm's and deb's (on Debian, you can do both). > > > > Now to (1)... Ouch: > > * The stalling of po-debconf is my fault, but see today's update to rhbz#591389 > > (I'm fixing my ways...) > > > > * If we resolve it quickly, the next is debhelper (rhbz#591190). IMO the main > > blocker there is finding someone committed to review (I'm willing to maintain it). > > There's another problem in the chain (dpkg too old), but hopefully it will > > be OK soon (maintainer updated today the BR and said he would fix it RSN) > > > > * I uploaded a temporary pbuilder SRPM: > > http://oron.fedorapeople.org/deb-package/pbuilder-0.213-1.fc18.src.rpm > > - It's up-to-date (Debian/wheezy) > > - But I didn't have time to clean it up for review. Hope to do this in the next > > few days and update the RR. > > > > So maybe we finally have a chance to move this along before the > > dedicated bug zappers would zap it (no criticism -- they work > > hard to clean the mess we leave behind us). > > > > Unrelated note: > > * I've been using schroot(1) a lot in the last years on both Debian/Fedora to > > maintain multiple clean build environments of different OS. > > * However, one of the most useful features -- snapshots via LVM -- is not > > usable in Fedora due to rhbz#600636 > > * That bug-report is stalled since 2010, and exactly a year passed since > > I sent a tested patch... > > > > OK, back to work now. > > Hi, > I'm going , if no problem, begin F18 cycle > build this 7 packages: > dpkg > debconf > po-debconf > debhelper > alien > dh-make > pbuilder > > 1st build dpkg and debconf https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/packageinfo?packageID=9963 dpkg-1.16.10-4 for devel , f19 and f18 https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/packageinfo?packageID=13893 debconf-1.5.49-2.fc18 for devel , f19 and f18 > after build po-debconf (depends on debconf) https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/packageinfo?packageID=16122 we need rebuild po-debconf for devel , f19 and f18 , for new debconf-1.5.49 I put debconf in buildroot-override bodhi --buildroot-override=debconf-1.5.49-2.fc18 --duration=5 --notes="For po-debconf, debhelper, alien and dh-make" > after build debhelper ( depends on dpkg and po-debconf ) next is put po-debconf in build root , to build debhelper > after build alien (depends on debhelper) and dh-make (depends on > debhelper ) next is put debhelper in build root , to build alien and dh-make > after review and build pbuilder (depends on dh-make, debhelper and > po-debconf ) Oron, I don't have commit permissions for po-debconf and debhelper so you can give me that and with buildroot-override we can finish this weekend . Best regards and thanks, -- Sérgio M. B. -- devel mailing list devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
