lists.openwall.net   lists  /  announce  owl-users  owl-dev  john-users  john-dev  passwdqc-users  yescrypt  popa3d-users  /  oss-security  kernel-hardening  musl  sabotage  tlsify  passwords  /  crypt-dev  xvendor  /  Bugtraq  Full-Disclosure  linux-kernel  linux-netdev  linux-ext4  linux-hardening  linux-cve-announce  PHC 
Open Source and information security mailing list archives
 
Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.
[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Date:   Tue, 12 Mar 2019 01:19:27 +0900
From:   Masahiro Yamada <yamada.masahiro@...ionext.com>
To:     "Enrico Weigelt, metux IT consult" <info@...ux.net>
Cc:     Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        Michal Marek <michal.lkml@...kovi.net>,
        Robo Bot <apw@...onical.com>, Joe Perches <joe@...ches.com>,
        Linux Kbuild mailing list <linux-kbuild@...r.kernel.org>,
        linux-riscv@...ts.infradead.org,
        Ben Hutchings <ben@...adent.org.uk>,
        Riku Voipio <riku.voipio@...aro.org>
Subject: Re: Debian build polishing

(+CC more debian folks)


On Fri, Mar 8, 2019 at 9:45 PM Enrico Weigelt, metux IT consult
<info@...ux.net> wrote:
>
> Hi folks,
>
>
> here're some patches for polishing up the Debian packaging stuff,
> so it can be directly used w/ usual Debian machinery like
> pbuilder, git-buildpackage, dck-buildpackage, etc.
>
> These expect debian/rules to exist in the unpacked/patched tree
> and drive the whole build. Currently 'make deb-pkg' does it in
> the opposite direction - it creates debian/rules and fills in
> some data, that's derived from .config etc.
>
> My goal is building the kernel package in exactly the same way as
> any other Debian package - so there must be a debian/rules as the
> primary entry point. To do that, w/ minimal change and w/o breaking
> the existing machinery, I'm going in several steps:
>
> #1: add Makefile rules for retrieving missing makefile-internal
>     variables kernel config system .config (eg. kernel arch).
>
>     this could be used for other build systems, too.
>     just call: `make kernelarch` or `make kernellocalversion`
>
> #2: add an env variable for changing the name of the rules file
>     generated by mkdebian. When coming from an existing rules
>     file, we can prevent this from being overwritten.
>
> #3: add a generic debian/rules file, that calls mkdebian to
>     create the remaining debian control files (w/ rules redirected
>     into nirvana)
>
> The existing `make deb-pkg` is bypassed and remains ontouched.
>
> One point still puzzling me: once the debian/rules is applied and
> somebody calls `make deb-pkg`, he'll end up w/ unclean tree, as
> now a git-tracked file is changed.


Then, setlocalversion will set -dirty flag.

Committing debian/rules looks questionable to me.


> Perhaps I just change deb-pkg to call debian/rules then, but I'd
> like to hear your oppinions about this, before.
>
>
> What do you think about that ?
>
>
> --mtx
>
>


-- 
Best Regards
Masahiro Yamada

Powered by blists - more mailing lists

Powered by Openwall GNU/*/Linux Powered by OpenVZ