1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
|
[[!comment format=mdwn
username="spwhitton"
subject="comment 2"
date="2016-05-22T01:48:27Z"
content="""
Thanks for your feedback.
> Re not running propellor in the sbuild chroot, I have in the past used
> schroot for things where it would have made sense to run propellor in
> the chroot. OTOH, systemd-container is a better fit for such uses
> cases now, probably.
I was thinking that if someone wanted to use a schroot and run
propellor in it, useful properties could be appended to
`Propellor.Property.Schroot`. As far as types go, I think that the
types in `Propellor.Property.Chroot` would be sufficient.
> Is the ~/.sbuildrc necessary to use the sbuild properties? If so,
> would it make sense to have a property that configures it?
The only probably which *needs* the suggested ~/.sbuildrc is
`Sbuild.piupartsConfFor`. With the other properties and no
~/.sbuildrc, you should be able to go ahead and use sbuild(1) to
perform a clean build.
I don't think there is a way to write a non-intrusive property to add
anything to a user's ~/.sbuildrc. That's because they will probably
have different preferences for the options to pass to piuparts than I
give in the example, and we would have to merge the adt-run code with
any existing post-build-commands. I'm not sure propellor should have
a perl config file parser.
> You could use Utility.DataUnits for Ccache's MaxSize. This would be
> more flexible and consistent with other things in propellor.
Done.
> Limit could be a monoid. This would perhaps simplify hasGroupCache as
> it could only be used once to set multiple limits.
Done.
> Maybe instead of Ccache.hasGroupCache, call it Ccache.hasCache?
Done, I think that's better. I was originally thinking that the name
`Ccache.hasCache` might be for a property `User -> Property
DebianLike`. However, if someone wanted to write a property configuring
a user cache, it would probably have the standard location
`~/.ccache`. This cache would be implicitly created when required, so
the name `Ccache.hasCache` would be needed.
> That is a weird build warning! But, I don't see it with ghc
> 7.10.3. Normally you'd see that warning when the module's export list
> exported the same symbol twice.
I'm on GHC 7.10.3, too...
"""]]
|
