On Mon, Jan 16, 2006 at 06:36:39PM -0800, Junio C Hamano wrote:
> Ryan Anderson <[email protected]> writes:
>
> > I've been trying to track down a strange issue with building kernels
> > (and scripts/setlocalversion) and finally realized the problem was the
> > when run under fakeroot, git-diff-files thinks everything is changed
> > (deleted, I believe)
>
> BTW, Ryan, I suspect this is where you try to append "-dirty" to
> the version number. But I wonder why you are doing the build
> under fakeroot to begin with? Wasn't the SOP "build as
> yourself, install as root"?
That's exactly what started this search, because I was running
"make deb-pkg". (Effectively.) dpkg-buildpackage wants to think it is
running as root, either via sudo or via fakeroot. I had my build
environment switched over entirely to fakeroot, as it just seems to be a
better practice, but I've temporarily switched back to sudo.
However, your explanation has pointed out to me how I can solve this -
run "fakeroot -u" instead of "fakeroot", and I think it will be fixed.
lkml cc:ed to hopefully stick this in an archive where someone else will
find it.
--
Ryan Anderson
sometimes Pug Majere
On Jan 17, 2006, at 00:27, Ryan Anderson wrote:
> On Mon, Jan 16, 2006 at 06:36:39PM -0800, Junio C Hamano wrote:
>> BTW, Ryan, I suspect this is where you try to append "-dirty" to
>> the version number. But I wonder why you are doing the build
>> under fakeroot to begin with? Wasn't the SOP "build as
>> yourself, install as root"?
>
> That's exactly what started this search, because I was running
> "make deb-pkg". (Effectively.) dpkg-buildpackage wants to think it
> is running as root, either via sudo or via fakeroot. I had my
> build environment switched over entirely to fakeroot, as it just
> seems to be a better practice, but I've temporarily switched back
> to sudo.
>
> However, your explanation has pointed out to me how I can solve
> this - run "fakeroot -u" instead of "fakeroot", and I think it will
> be fixed.
You should run "make" first, then after that completes run "fakeroot
make deb-pkg". I think this is similar to what the Debian package
"kernel-package" does, except it substitutes an alternate "debian/"
directory. IIRC, it just runs "make install" as a normal user to a
staging directory, then runs "$(ROOTCMD) dpkg-deb -b [...]" to build
the package. IMHO it's somewhat of a cleaner solution, and I've used
it for several years now with no issues.
Cheers,
Kyle Moffett
--
I have yet to see any problem, however complicated, which, when you
looked at it in the right way, did not become still more complicated.
-- Poul Anderson
Kyle Moffett wrote:
> On Jan 17, 2006, at 00:27, Ryan Anderson wrote:
>
>> On Mon, Jan 16, 2006 at 06:36:39PM -0800, Junio C Hamano wrote:
>>
>>> BTW, Ryan, I suspect this is where you try to append "-dirty" to
>>> the version number. But I wonder why you are doing the build under
>>> fakeroot to begin with? Wasn't the SOP "build as
>>> yourself, install as root"?
>>
>>
>> That's exactly what started this search, because I was running "make
>> deb-pkg". (Effectively.) dpkg-buildpackage wants to think it is
>> running as root, either via sudo or via fakeroot. I had my build
>> environment switched over entirely to fakeroot, as it just seems to
>> be a better practice, but I've temporarily switched back to sudo.
>>
>> However, your explanation has pointed out to me how I can solve this
>> - run "fakeroot -u" instead of "fakeroot", and I think it will be
>> fixed.
>
>
> You should run "make" first, then after that completes run "fakeroot
> make deb-pkg". I think this is similar to what the Debian package
> "kernel-package" does, except it substitutes an alternate "debian/"
> directory. IIRC, it just runs "make install" as a normal user to a
> staging directory, then runs "$(ROOTCMD) dpkg-deb -b [...]" to build
> the package. IMHO it's somewhat of a cleaner solution, and I've used
> it for several years now with no issues.
Right "make all && fakeroot make deb-pkg" was failing, because with
CONFIG_LOCALVERSION_AUTO set, I was both getting a "-dirty" string
appended to the version, as well as something awfully close to a full
rebuild due to the version number changing, and on top of all that, the
dpkg-buildpackage would fail, as "-dirty" doesn't have a number in it
(hence why you see dfsg1 or ubuntu0 in version strings.)
I think I might take your suggestion, and fix up the builddeb script to
do the "run as root" part itself, rather than needing to do it outside.
It would make it possible to just run "make oldconfig deb-pkg" which
would make things a little bit simpler.
--
Ryan Anderson
sometimes Pug Majere
On Tue, Jan 17, 2006 at 01:08:48AM -0500, Ryan Anderson wrote:
>
> I think I might take your suggestion, and fix up the builddeb script to
> do the "run as root" part itself, rather than needing to do it outside.
> It would make it possible to just run "make oldconfig deb-pkg" which
> would make things a little bit simpler.
If we do something it must be consistent for all *-pkg targets.
So fixing up builddeb is not enough, we must fix it for rpm etc also.
Not that I have looked into what is needed, but we shall not have
inconsistent behavious between the different *-pkg targets.
Sam