[buildd-tools-devel] Bug#714149: sbuild: Let users push additional s to the build dependencies dummy archive

[Emanuele Aina]

merge 700522 714149
thanks

> This looks like exactly what I was going for with this much smaller 
> patch, written for bug #700522:
> https://github.com/geofft/sbuild/commit/3f7ecfde5e07c66ec1d7e88fac7423f94400f68b
>
> See http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=700522

Ouch, I don't know how I missed it, thank you for spotting my duplicate!

> Want to merge these two wishlist bugs? I haven't looked in detail at your 
> refactoring, but it felt like my patch was adding this in a slightly 
> questionable manner, so I'd be happy for yours to get merged instead if 
> it's preferable.

Yes, they definitely need to be merged. My commit
http://cgit.collabora.com/git/user/em/sbuild/commit/?id=cccdc7 is not
very different from yours at
https://github.com/geofft/sbuild/commit/3f7ecf

I'm open to suggestions for the command line option name: you used
--add-package, I used --add-extra-package but I'd also consider
--inject-package to differentiate it more from the current --add-*
options which operate on the control file.

> Also want to take a crack at --add-repository? :-) My plan there was to 
> patch `apt-get update` to let you update a single repository, clean up the 
> existing messy code that you refactored into force_update_archive_list() 
> to use that interface, and then allow adding a sources.list.d file and 
> updating that. Unfortunately the most obvious way to implement that apt 
> patch ends up with apt forgetting about every other source, and I didn't 
> have time to try harder.

It would a really nice thing to do but I'm not sure I will have the time
to look into that. :(

Is there an already open bug report for apt-get mentioning our use case
or would you care to open it? They seems two different issues and it
would be unfortunate to lose track of it once this bug gets closed.

Thanks!

-- 
Emanuele Aina
http://www.collabora.com