#373807 simple syntax to support multiple build environments

Package:
pbuilder
Source:
pbuilder
Submitter:
martin f krafft
Date:
2010-01-07 13:48:06 UTC
Severity:
wishlist
#373807#3
Date:
2006-06-15 16:51:59 UTC
From:
To:
Maybe pbuilder could incorporate the name of the distribution (and
possibly the architecture) into the base.tgz filename and then use
that automatically. Since sid is the default if no distribution is
given, the default base.tgz should be named base-sid.tgz, which
could be a symlink to base.tgz.

I always have to specify

  pbuilder ... --distribution sid --basetgz .../base-sid.tgz

Of course I have that scripted (in .pbuilderrc), but it would be
best if pbuilder could just support this.

It could always fall back to just base.tgz if base-$(DIST).tgz does
not exist.

And for execute or login, I would now specify --distribution as
well, which would select the right base.tgz file. The --basetgz
option is still useful to override that default.

Cheers,
#373807#8
Date:
2006-06-15 23:45:38 UTC
From:
To:


regards,
	junichi
#373807#11
Date:
2006-06-16 09:34:51 UTC
From:
To:
also sprach Junichi Uekawa <dancer@netfort.gr.jp> [2006.06.16.0145 +0200]:

This is not my point. I would love to see pbuilder support different
basetgz with codenames instead of full pathnames. But maybe this is
just my wish.
#373807#16
Date:
2006-06-17 02:08:45 UTC
From:
To:
From the designing and extention perspective, I do not like embedding
names; I'd like the name to be left to the system administrator.

	/usr/share/doc/pbuilder/examples/pbuilder-distribution.sh is
one example script which would probably be more convenient than having
such an option.


regards,
	junichi
#373807#21
Date:
2006-10-22 14:06:46 UTC
From:
To:
        Hi Martin,

 I had the same problem than you, and ended up using this shell snippet
 in my pbuilderrc:

# archived chroot image location
if [ "$PDEBUILD_PBUILDER" = "pbuilder" ]; then
    BASETGZDIR="$PBUILDERROOT/basetgz/$DISTRIBUTION"
    create_dir "$BASETGZDIR"
    BASETGZ="$BASETGZDIR/base.tgz"
fi

 /usr/share/doc/pbuilder/examples/pbuilder-distribution.sh is another
 solution.

 Do you agree this feature can be handled by end-user configuration?
 Should be keep the bug open?

   Bye,
#373807#24
Date:
2006-10-27 14:25:11 UTC
From:
To:
also sprach Loïc Minier <lool@dooz.org> [2006.10.22.1606 +0200]:

Certainly. I've been using
http://svn.madduck.net/pub/bin/pbuilder/plogin, which can be
symlinked to pexecute, pbuild, pupdate, and pclean. Those five take
care of my pbuilder needs. To build packages, I use pbuild, or, if
that's not available, the same sort of idea in dbuild:
http://svn.madduck.net/pub/bin/debian/dbuild.

(updates to these pending, I am on the train now and rewrote parts)

Well, it kinda depends. I think it's always nice to get rid of
wrapper shell scripts as functionality moves to the core -- pbuilder
in this case. If it won't get fixed, tag it wontfix. Okay?
#373807#29
Date:
2006-10-28 13:46:05 UTC
From:
To:
 Your wrappers are full or personal customizations.  I think a lot of
 people are customizing their systems like this.

 Concerning this particular config, basetgz (but basepath suffers from
 the same problems), I'm not sure it would be wise to specialize the
 default name.  The reasons against the change I see are:
 - this would make it rather hard to handle dist-upgrades of the
   contents of the pbuilder (how do we detect a change from sarge to
   etch?  should we rename the tarball after the upgrade?) or mixtures
   of various distribution (how do you name a pbuilder which is setup
   for sid + $company repository?)
 - this naming scheme is arbitrary, we could base the name on the login
   of the unix user doing "sudo pbuilder create"
 - this is easily configurable, we already found three completely
   different implementations of this config

 The reason I see in favor of the change I see is:
 - would make it easier to have out of the box support for creation and
   usage of one pbuilder per dist

 The most flexible approach remains (IMO) the current one where this is
 simply configurable.


 Out of curiosity: what's this "phoenix" shell you're using?
#373807#32
Date:
2006-10-29 09:48:04 UTC
From:
To:
also sprach Loïc Minier <lool@dooz.org> [2006.10.28.1546 +0200]:

Exactly why I think we should move the feature upstream.

this is up to you.

yup.

pbuilder has so many complexities that I just would not call it
simply configurable; you can do so much wrong. Even just command
line handling is a major PITA at times.

http://svn.madduck.net/pub/bin/base/phoenix

I exited the chroot too many times by accident. :)
#373807#37
Date:
2006-10-29 21:05:14 UTC
From:
To:
 Hmm, I didn't express it, but I also wanted to write that people are
 doing /different/ customizations on each site, on each machine; /weird/
 things, like we both do.  But certainly this is one of the most common
 customizations.

 I call it too hard and risky for now and for me, so I wont touch it
 myself right now.  O:-)

 It's already complex, and yet this bug is about a new feature to remove
 some complexity, but also to add some!  :-)

   Thanks for discussion,
#373807#40
Date:
2008-07-28 14:36:39 UTC
From:
To:
Hi, FYI

See http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=398404

(I am polishing detail of script here)

This is another attempt to do one base.tzg per distribution.

Regards,

Osamu