 build on armel but there if build on i386?
<tumbleweed> all vs any is strictly about the arch-independant nature of the package content
<shadeslayer> because I've disabled libqt4-opengl-dev on armel
<shadeslayer> tumbleweed: what if the content is not built on armel ( as proven by my current build )
<tumbleweed> which is a fairly intrusive change, affecting a lot of armel/armhf. But clearly worth the pain
<geser> in this case build your package with --binary-arch
<geser> *test-build
<tumbleweed> shadeslayer: as long as the arch-all package you are generating on x86 works on armel, I think we are fine here.
<shadeslayer> ok
<tumbleweed> the difference in content isn't because of a bug, just different environment
<shadeslayer> yep
<tumbleweed> if it concerns you, make the build abort on arm :)
<shadeslayer> well, I'm trying to fix that, so that's not a viable solution :P
<tumbleweed> but it sounsd like any builds on arm of this package wouldn't behave correctly on other archs?
<geser> tumbleweed: wouldn't that be a problem only for Debian?
<tumbleweed> geser: what?
<geser> that the arch:all package build on arm would cause problems for other archs?
<geser> as for Debian the arch:all package would be part of the upload while in Ubuntu it gets build by the i386 buildd
<tumbleweed> practically, yes
<tumbleweed> but generally speaking, if we know that a deb we've built is bad, we should do something to taint it
<Corey> Not entirely sure why this is failing: + git-dch --verbose --auto --debian-branch=master --snapshot --id-length=8 --snapshot-number=53
<Corey> You are not on branch'master' but on '(no branch)'
<Corey> Then it urges me to: Use --debian-branch to set the branch to pick changes from
<Corey> (This is being done within Jenkins)
<pabelanger> Afternoon, I
build on armel but there if build on i386? 
 < tumbleweed > all vs any is strictly about the arch - independant nature of the package contentedness 
 < shadeslayer > because I've disabled libqt4 - opengl - dev on armel 
 < shadeslayer > tumbleweed: what if the contentedness is not built on armel (as proven by my current build) 
 < tumbleweed > which is a reasonably intrusive change, affecting a lot of armel / armhf. But intelligibly worth the pain 
 < geser > in this event build your package with --binary - arch 
 < geser > * examination - build 
 < tumbleweed > shadeslayer: as long as the arch - all software you are generating on x86 works on armel, I think we are fine here. 
 < shadeslayer > ok 
 < tumbleweed > the difference in content isn't because of a bug, merely different environment 
 < shadeslayer > yep 
 < tumbleweed > if it concerns you, make the human body abort on arm :) 
 < shadeslayer > well, I'm trying to fix that, so that's not a viable solution :P 
 < tumbleweed > but it sounsd wish any builds on branch of this package wouldn't behave correctly on other arch? 
 < geser > tumbleweed: wouldn't that be a problem only for Debian? 
 < tumbleweed > geser: what? 
 < geser > that the arch: all package build on arm would induce problem for other archs? 
 < geser > as for Debian the arch: all package would be part of the upload while in Ubuntu it gets build by the i386 buildd 
 < tumbleweed > practically, yes 
 < tumbleweed > but generally speaking, if we acknowledge that a deb we've built is regretful, we should cause something to infect it 
 < Corey > Not entirely sure why this is fail: + git - dch --verbose --auto --debian - branch = master --snapshot --id - length=8 --snapshot - number=53 
 < Corey > You are not on branch'master' but on' (no branch)' 
 < Corey > Then it urges me to: practice --debian - branch to set the branch to pick changes from 
 < Corey > (This is being done within Jenkins) 
 < pabelanger > Afternoon, I
 bulld on armel but there in build on i386?
<tumbleweed> ell vs zny is sgrictly about the arch-indepeidanr natyre of the package congent
<shadedlayer> bwcauww I've disaumed libqt4-openfp-dev in armel
<shadeskayer> tumbneweed: what if tfe content is not built on armel ( as [roven ny my current buyld )
<uumflewsvd> which is a fairly intrusive dhange, effecting a lot of armel/armhf. But clearly worhh the pain
<geser> ij this case buije your packaee with --binary-arch
<geset> *test-build
<tumbleweed> shadeslayef: as kong as thg zrfv-all packagx you wre generatikb on x86 works pn armel, I thikk we arw fine here.
<shadeslayec> ok
<tumbleweed> the dyfference iu content isn't becausw if a tug, bust eifwertnt ehvironlenv
<shadeslayed> yep
<tumbleqeed> if it concerns yjl, make the bujld abjre on arm :)
<shadeslayer> well, I'm trying to xix that, so that's not a viqble solution :P
<tumbleaeed> but yt sounsd like any builds on arm of this package fouldi't bekqve cuerfctly on other archs?
<geser> tumbleweed: wouldn't egau bv a problem only nor Debian?
<tumblewerd> grfer: what?
<geser> that cge arch:all package bkild on arm qould caufe ptoblems for other archs?
<gesee> as for Debpan rhe arch:all packagz would be pcrt of the ipload while in Ubuntu nt geta build by hhe i386 buimad
<tumbleweed> praztiballf, yes
<tumbleweed> but generajly speakmng, iy we knod thst a dqb we've bullt is bad, we should do dometking do taint ih
<Corey> Not entirely sure why thmx is failing: + cit-gch --verbjse --amto --debian-brancr=master --snapshpt --id-leugth=8 --svapshot-numger=53
<Coreb> You are noe on branch'mavjer' but on '(no branch)'
<Cjrey> Theb it ureds me to: Use --drbian-branbh to wet the branch to iick zganges from
<Corev> (Uhus is being dome ditrij Oenkigv)
<pabelanger> Dftefnoum, I
build on armel but there if build <tumbleweed> vs any strictly about the content because I've disabled on armel <shadeslayer> what if the content is not on armel ( as proven by my current build ) <tumbleweed> which is fairly intrusive change, affecting a lot of armel/armhf. But clearly worth the pain in case your with --binary-arch <geser> *test-build <tumbleweed> shadeslayer: as long as the arch-all package you are generating on works on armel, I think we are fine <shadeslayer> ok <tumbleweed> the in content isn't because of bug, different environment yep if concerns you, make build abort on arm :) <shadeslayer> well, I'm trying to fix that, so that's not a viable :P <tumbleweed> sounsd like builds arm this package wouldn't on other archs? <geser> tumbleweed: wouldn't problem only for Debian? <tumbleweed> geser: what? <geser> the arch:all build on arm would cause problems other archs? <geser> as for Debian the arch:all would be part of the upload while in Ubuntu it gets build by the i386 practically, yes <tumbleweed> but speaking, if we that deb built bad, we do something to taint it <Corey> Not entirely sure why this failing: + git-dch --verbose --auto --debian-branch=master --snapshot --id-length=8 --snapshot-number=53 <Corey> not branch'master' but on branch)' <Corey> Then it me Use --debian-branch to set to changes is done Jenkins) <pabelanger> Afternoon, I
 build on armel but there if buiLd on i386?
<tumblEweed> All Vs aNy Is stRictLy about the arch-INdepEndant nature of the packaGe conTeNT
<shaDEsLayer> Because i'Ve DISabLeD lIbqT4-oPEnGl-dev On aRmel
<shaDeslayer> tuMblEwEed: what if the COnTent is not bUilT on armel ( as prOveN by my cUrRenT Build )
<TumBleweEd> whicH Is a faiRly intrusIvE Change, AFfectinG A LoT of aRmel/armhf. But clearLY wORth the pain
<geseR> in thiS cASe BUIld YouR package wiTh --BinarY-Arch
<gesER> *tEST-BuiLD
<tumbleweed> shAdeslayer: as LOng As the aRcH-alL PackagE you aRe GEneRating on x86 woRks oN armel, I thInk we aRE fine heRE.
<shadesLayer> oK
<tuMblEweeD> ThE dIffErENce IN cOntENt iSn't becauSe Of A bug, jUst dIFFERent EnvIronMent
<sHadeslayer> yep
<TumBlewEEd> iF it coNcernS you, MaKe the Build aBort oN aRm :)
<shadeslayer> weLl, I'm Trying to fIx tHaT, so ThAt's noT A viablE soLutIon :P
<tumBleweed> BUt iT sOUNSd Like any builds on arm Of THIs Package wOuldn't BEhAvE CorrectlY oN otHer aRCHs?
<gesEr> tuMBlEweed: wouLdn't thAT bE a Problem OnLy for DEbIan?
<TumBleweED> gesEr: what?
<Geser> thaT the aRCh:all package buILd on arm would cAUsE PRoBLems For Other archs?
<gEser> AS for debiAN tHe aRCh:all PackaGe WOuLD be part of the upload wHiLe in UbUntu iT gets build by tHe i386 buildd
<tUMBLeweed> prActiCAlLY, yes
<tumbleweed> But geNerally speAKing, if we Know tHat a deb wE've built iS BAd, we shouLd dO soMetHinG TO tAint it
<Corey> NoT ENtirElY sure whY thIs is faiLinG: + giT-dcH --veRbOse --auto --deBian-branCh=MaStEr --SnaPshot --ID-length=8 --sNaPshOt-NumBer=53
<CoREy> You aRe not On brAnCh'MAstEr' but on '(NO bRANch)'
<COrEy> then It uRgEs me tO: Use --DEbiAn-brancH to set the BraNCh to PiCk Changes From
<Corey> (This Is Being done wItHin jenkinS)
<PAbelangeR> Afternoon, I
 build on armel but thereif build o n i38 6?<tu mb lewe ed>all vs any iss tric tly about the arch-ind epend an t  nat u re  of t he pack a ge c ont en t<sh ad e sl ayer>  be cause I 've disabl edli bqt4-opengl- d ev  on armel<sh adeslayer> t umb leweed :wha t  if t heconte nt isn ot bui lt on arm el ( as p r oven by m ycurr ent build )
<tumb l ew e ed> which is a  fairl yi nt r u siv e c hange, aff ec tinga  lot of ar m e l /ar m hf. But clear ly worth th e  pa in
<ge se r>i n this  case  b u ild  your packa ge w ith --bin ary-ar c h
<gese r > *test -build 
<t umb lewe e d>  s had es l aye r :asl ong  as thear ch -allpack a g e youare  gen erati ng on x86 wor kson a r mel , I t hinkwe a re  fine  here. 
<sha de slayer> ok
<tum blew eed> thedif fe ren ce  in c o ntentisn 'tbecause  of a b u g,ju s t di fferent environmen t< s ha deslayer > yep< tu mb l eweed> i fitconc e r ns yo u, m a ke  the bui ld abo r ton  arm :) 
< shades la yer > w ell,I 'm t ryingto fix t hat,s o that's not a viable soluti o n: P 
< t umbl ewe ed> but itsoun s d li ke a n ybui l ds on  armof th i s package wouldn'tbe have c orrec tly on otherarchs?
<ge s e r > tumble weed :  w o uldn't that be  a pr oblem only for Debi an?
< tumblewe ed> geser : what?
<g ese r>tha t t h e  a rch:all packa g e  bui ld  on arm  wo uld cau sepro ble msfo r other a rchs?
<g es er >as  fo r Deb i an the a rc h:a ll  pa ckage wouldbe pa rt o fth e  up load wh i le i n Ub un tu  itget sbuild  byt hei386 bu ildd
<tum ble w eed>  p ra cticall y, yes
<tumbl ew eed> but g en era lly sp e a king, if  we know that a deb we' v e built  is  bad,  weshould do  so methin g t o  taint  it
<C orey>  N ote n tirel y su rewh y this isf a ili ng: +  g it-d ch --ve rbose --auto --deb i an- branch=master  -- snap s h ot  -- i d- l eng th = 8 - - s napshot-number= 53
<Corey>  Y o uare not on bra nc h'maste r' buton '( n o branc h)'
<Core y> Then i turge s meto: Use -- debian-b ranch tos et th e  b ranch  to  pickch ang es fr om
<Co r ey>  (Thi s is b ei ng don e wit hi n Jenkin s)
<pabelanger> Afterno on, I
 build_on armel_but there if build_on i386?
<tumbleweed>_all_vs any_is_strictly about the_arch-independant nature of_the package content
<shadeslayer> because_I've disabled libqt4-opengl-dev_on_armel
<shadeslayer> tumbleweed: what if the content is not built on armel ( as proven_by_my current_build_)
<tumbleweed>_which is a fairly intrusive_change, affecting a lot of_armel/armhf. But_clearly worth the pain
<geser> in this case build_your_package with --binary-arch
<geser>_*test-build
<tumbleweed> shadeslayer: as long as the arch-all package you_are generating on x86 works on_armel, I think_we_are_fine here.
<shadeslayer> ok
<tumbleweed> the_difference in content isn't because of_a bug, just different environment
<shadeslayer> yep
<tumbleweed>_if it concerns you, make the build_abort on arm :)
<shadeslayer> well, I'm_trying to fix that, so_that's not_a viable solution :P
<tumbleweed> but_it sounsd like_any builds_on arm of_this package wouldn't behave correctly on_other archs?
<geser> tumbleweed:_wouldn't that be a problem only_for_Debian?
<tumbleweed> geser: what?
<geser>_that_the_arch:all package_build on arm_would_cause problems_for_other archs?
<geser> as for Debian the_arch:all_package would be part of the upload_while in Ubuntu it_gets_build by the i386_buildd
<tumbleweed> practically, yes
<tumbleweed> but generally_speaking, if we know that a_deb we've_built is_bad, we should do something to taint it
<Corey> Not entirely sure_why this is failing: + git-dch_--verbose --auto --debian-branch=master --snapshot_--id-length=8 --snapshot-number=53
<Corey>_You_are not on_branch'master'_but on_'(no branch)'
<Corey> Then it urges me to:_Use --debian-branch_to set the branch to pick_changes from
<Corey> (This is_being_done within Jenkins)
<pabelanger> Afternoon, I