[Buildd-tools-devel] Removing strict distribution check

[Francesco Paolo Lovergine]

On Mon, Dec 06, 2004 at 06:58:49PM +0100, Andreas Barth wrote:
> * Michael Banck (mbanck@debian.org) [041206 18:55]:
> > if somebody (just as a theoretical example ;) wants to built Ubuntu
> > packages on a Debian system via sbuild, they would have to get a warty
> > or hoary chroot and then do something like 'sbuild -d warty foo.dsc'.
> > 
> > However, sbuild spews out a 'Bad distribution' header because neither
> > warty nor hoary are known to them. Ubuntu does not use generic names
> > like 'stable', 'testing', 'unstable' and thus it would be cumbersome to
> > hardcode their codenames into sbuild. I therefore propose the following
> > change:
> > 
> > --- sbuild.orig 2004-12-06 18:39:41.000000000 +0100
> > +++ sbuild      2004-12-06 18:39:52.000000000 +0100
> > @@ -135,8 +135,6 @@
> >                 $main::distribution = "stable"   if $main::distribution eq "s";
> >                 $main::distribution = "testing"  if $main::distribution eq "t";
> >                 $main::distribution = "unstable" if $main::distribution eq "u";
> > -               die "Bad distribution\n"
> > -                       if !isin($main::distribution, keys(%main::dist_order));
> >         }
> >         elsif (/^-p/ || /^--purge/) {
> >                 if (/^-p(.)/ || /^--purge=(.)/) {
> > 
> > 
> > OK to commit? Also note that you will have similar trouble when trying
> > to sbuild for experimental (if you care to setup an experimental
> > chroot), AFAIK.
> 
> Sorry, I disagree. Just make the main::dist_order a configuration
> variable (if it not already is), and you can configure whatever you
> want. (At least that's the way I use for building experimental packages
> since months.)
> 

Indeed it could be a better solution.

-- 
Francesco P. Lovergine