|
Home > Archive > Debian Developers > November 2005 > Secret changes for binNMUs
You are viewing an archived Text-only version of the thread.
To view this thread in it's original format and/or if you want to reply to
this thread please [click here]
| Author |
Secret changes for binNMUs
|
|
| Goswin von Brederlow 2005-11-23, 5:55 pm |
| Hi,
recently some changes have been made to the DAK, wanna-build and
buildds for binNMUs that probably went unnoticed to most developers.
And since binNMUs are rather uncommon you might not notice for the
longest time and then despair.
So heres a summary:
- buildds can recompile a source with a binNMU version
This uses the original Debian source and adds a changelog entry
stating that it is an automatic recompile before recompiling.
- wanna-build can be asked to schedule a binNMU for an arch
This means that you don't have to manualy compile binNMUs anymore,
which should probably be discouraged from now on. If you think a
binNMU is needed for ome reason a request should be send to
debian-release and they will deal with it.
- binNMU version scheme changed
The developer reference _still_ states binNMU should be versioned as
1.2-3.0.1. The DAK will no longer accept this.
Instead binNMU versions are now made by adding +b1 (+b2, +b3) to the
version and containing a "Source: foo (non-NMU version)" line. The
later makes it possible to reliable associate binNMUs with their
source.
If you NEED to do a manual binNMU it is probably best to use sbuild
(the cvs, not deb) or at lest look at what sbuild does for a binNMU
before attempting your own. Normaly just ask debian-release do
schedule one on the buildds for you.
I hope that helps you.
MfG
Goswin
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-REQUEST@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org
| |
| Andreas Barth 2005-11-23, 5:55 pm |
| * Goswin von Brederlow (brederlo@informatik.uni-tuebingen.de) [051123 15:51]:
> - binNMU version scheme changed
>
> The developer reference _still_ states binNMU should be versioned as
> 1.2-3.0.1. The DAK will no longer accept this.
I am sorry that the developers reference is a bit lagging currently. Do
you have some new wording available, or do you want till I find time to
fix it myself?
Cheers,
Andi
--
http://home.arcor.de/andreas-barth/
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-REQUEST@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org
| |
| Henrique de Moraes Holschuh 2005-11-23, 5:55 pm |
| On Wed, 23 Nov 2005, Goswin von Brederlow wrote:
> - buildds can recompile a source with a binNMU version
We were told about this, although I can't recall if the proper channel
(d-d-a) was used.
Would you consider posting your message to debian-devel-announce, please?
That's where such extremely important messages belong :-)
--
"One disk to rule them all, One disk to find them. One disk to bring
them all and in the darkness grind them. In the Land of Redmond
where the shadows lie." -- The Silicon Valley Tarot
Henrique Holschuh
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-REQUEST@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org
| |
| Goswin von Brederlow 2005-11-23, 5:55 pm |
| Henrique de Moraes Holschuh <hmh@debian.org> writes:
> On Wed, 23 Nov 2005, Goswin von Brederlow wrote:
>
> We were told about this, although I can't recall if the proper channel
> (d-d-a) was used.
>
> Would you consider posting your message to debian-devel-announce, please?
> That's where such extremely important messages belong :-)
Feel free to sign and forward the message. I can't.
MfG
Goswin
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-REQUEST@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org
| |
| Goswin von Brederlow 2005-11-23, 5:55 pm |
| Andreas Barth <aba@not.so.argh.org> writes:
> * Goswin von Brederlow (brederlo@informatik.uni-tuebingen.de) [051123 15:51]:
>
> I am sorry that the developers reference is a bit lagging currently. Do
> you have some new wording available, or do you want till I find time to
> fix it myself?
>
>
> Cheers,
> Andi
> --
> http://home.arcor.de/andreas-barth/
I can give it a shot and send you a draft for it.
>From a technical point I'm unsure how the following version will
(sbuild) and should (dak) be handled:
old version binNMU version?
1.2 1.2-0+b1
1.2-3.0.1 1.2-3.0.1+b1
I bet the later will confuse wanna-build, sbuild and the dak and just
require a new maintainer upload or source NMU instead. But is the
former one correct?
MfG
Goswin
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-REQUEST@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org
| |
| Michael Banck 2005-11-23, 8:51 pm |
| On Wed, Nov 23, 2005 at 03:50:11PM +0100, Goswin von Brederlow wrote:
> If you NEED to do a manual binNMU it is probably best to use sbuild
> (the cvs, not deb)
Patches for the Debian package are welcome, of course.
Michael
--
Michael Banck
Debian Developer
mbanck@debian.org
http://www.advogato.org/person/mbanck/diary.html
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-REQUEST@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org
| |
| Roger Leigh 2005-11-24, 7:49 am |
| -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
Goswin von Brederlow <brederlo@informatik.uni-tuebingen.de> writes:
> If you NEED to do a manual binNMU it is probably best to use sbuild
> (the cvs, not deb)
Which sbuild CVS repo? I'll be happy to merge the changes into the
official sbuild package (buildd-tools CVS).
BTW, are there any good reasons why the autobuilders don't use the
packaged version anywat? The differences are minimal.
Regards,
Roger
- --
Roger Leigh
Printing on GNU/Linux? http://gimp-print.sourceforge.net/
Debian GNU/Linux http://www.debian.org/
GPG Public Key: 0x25BFB848. Please sign and encrypt your mail.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.2 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Processed by Mailcrypt 3.5.8+ <http://mailcrypt.sourceforge.net/>
iD8DBQFDhZ3LVcFcaSW/ uEgRAqRsAKCKTXgSESNH5ROAiJcdAXyP7yJDOQCb
B/+R
ox+N2hrCGqlwJIv5V5q6+9I=
=Eu1o
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-REQUEST@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org
| |
| Michael Banck 2005-11-24, 7:49 am |
| On Thu, Nov 24, 2005 at 11:02:36AM +0000, Roger Leigh wrote:
> Goswin von Brederlow <brederlo@informatik.uni-tuebingen.de> writes:
>
>
> Which sbuild CVS repo?
It is a SVN repo now, the one used by the buildd infrastructure.
> BTW, are there any good reasons why the autobuilders don't use the
> packaged version anywat? The differences are minimal.
Last time I looked the changes seemed to be pretty big, but merging is
of course a mid-term goal.
In any case, the Debian package is the fork, while the sbuild in
wanna-build is upstream. As I understand it, we do not plan to use the
Debian sbuild package for the buildds, the upstream one works well
enough (and currently much better for what the buildds need)
Michael
--
Michael Banck
Debian Developer
mbanck@debian.org
http://www.advogato.org/person/mbanck/diary.html
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-REQUEST@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org
| |
| Wouter Verhelst 2005-11-24, 7:49 am |
| On Thu, Nov 24, 2005 at 11:02:36AM +0000, Roger Leigh wrote:
> Goswin von Brederlow <brederlo@informatik.uni-tuebingen.de> writes:
>
>
> Which sbuild CVS repo?
It's actually a subversion repository, and it's at
<http://svn.cyberhqz.com/svn/wanna-build>, as documented on
<http://buildd.debian.org>
> I'll be happy to merge the changes into the official sbuild package
> (buildd-tools CVS).
>
> BTW, are there any good reasons why the autobuilders don't use the
> packaged version anywat?
Many build daemons run stable rather than unstable, so running the
sbuild package from unstable on those is going to be cumbersome, at
best. Using the unstable package would require yet another step (getting
it through you) after updating the code; currently, the db.d.o
repository is updated by Ryan Murray, who also maintains the code
itself. Additionally, buildd and sbuild work in fairly close
cooperation, and using sbuild from one place and buildd from another
(buildd isn't in unstable) would require being, uh, quite careful.
Besides, buildd is not arch:all, so would need a recompile and backport
for stable anyway.
> The differences are minimal.
They were, originally. Ryan's been very active on it since, and it's
diverged a bit from the code you're maintaining.
I personally see the packages in unstable as something good for
end-users who want to use it, or understand how the system works; but
for Debian's purposes, it's not optimal.
--
..../ -/ ---/ .--./ / .--/ .-/ .../ -/ ../ -./ --./ / -.--/ ---/ ..-/ .-./ / -/
.../ --/ ./ / .--/ ../ -/ ..../ / -../ ./ -.-./ ---/ -../ ../ -./ --./ / --/
-.--/ / .../ ../ --./ -./ .-/ -/ ..-/ .-./ ./ .-.-.-/ / --/ ---/ .-./ .../ ./ /
.../ .../ / ---/ ..-/ -/ -../ .-/ -/ ./ -../ / -/ ./ -.-./ ..../ -./ ---/ .-../
---/ --./ -.--/ / .-/ -./ -.--/ .--/ .-/ -.--/ .-.-.-/ / ...-.-/
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-REQUEST@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org
| |
| Michael Banck 2005-11-24, 8:49 pm |
| On Thu, Nov 24, 2005 at 06:44:42PM +0100, Goswin von Brederlow wrote:
> Michael Banck <mbanck@debian.org> writes:
>
> Do you know about
>
> http://svn.cyberhqz.com/svn/wanna-build/
Was that a question? I stated in the mail you replied to that
wanna-build is now maintained in svn.
Still, I don't have time to look at it myself right now, so if somebody
wants to send a patch, fine, otherwise, we will get to it eventually.
Unless the release team and/or ftp-masters think this kind of new binNMU
style should be restricted to the buildds (does the old style still
work?).
Michael
--
Michael Banck
Debian Developer
mbanck@debian.org
http://www.advogato.org/person/mbanck/diary.html
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-REQUEST@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org
| |
| Michael Banck 2005-11-24, 8:49 pm |
| On Thu, Nov 24, 2005 at 06:51:24PM +0100, Goswin von Brederlow wrote:
> Wouter Verhelst <wouter@debian.org> writes:
>
> Then he should send patches and bug reports to the debian
> package.
When the sbuild package got orphaned two years ago or so, I asked Ryan
whether he would like to maintain it, and he said he was not interested.
Which is totally fine for me and about everybody else.
> This split between the user/developer visible sbuild and the secret
> actual buildd is just not in the spirit of Debian.
1. Please drop the `secret' immediately. Unless you really want to call
http://www.debian.org/devel/buildd `secret'. That your mail got resent
with the this subject to debian-devel-announce is already stressing it
*a lot*, IMHO.
2. I do not see why this should be against the spirit of Debian. As I
stated already, the sbuild package was always a fork intended to be more
usuable by humans, whereas the real sbuild is optimized for the buildds.
>
> So non "cabal" members should look at a different sbuild and then
> magically figure out where and how the secret one differs? What is the
> point in looking at sbuild if it isn't THE sbuild?
The point of looking at the sbuild package is to have a convenient tool
for people to build their packages in a chroot, similar to pbuilder.
Nothing more, nothing less. Please keep your cabalistic tendencies to
yourself, or at least off this mailing list.
> Last year the aim was to get the buildd sbuild and debian sbuild back
> in sync and it pains me to see Ryan silently diferting it further and
> further instead of aiding that goal.
Again: It is the sbuild's packages maintainers duty to sync with
upstream, not the other way round, and we've been slacking (again,
patches welcome). You seem to look at this from the wrong side of the
fork.
If somebody wants to package wanna-build, buildd and the accompayning
sbuild, they shall be my guest; but I believe the packages provided at
db.debian.org are easy enough to setup (as has been shown numerous times
now), and I will not engage in that undertaking. If that happens, we
can discuss how packages should be named, and whether the current sbuild
package should be renamed.
Until then, less drama would be welcome.
Michael
--
Michael Banck
Debian Developer
mbanck@debian.org
http://www.advogato.org/person/mbanck/diary.html
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-REQUEST@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org
| |
| Adeodato Simó 2005-11-24, 8:49 pm |
| * Goswin von Brederlow [Thu, 24 Nov 2005 18:51:24 +0100]:
Hi,
> Wouter Verhelst <wouter@debian.org> writes:
[vbcol=seagreen]
> Then he should send patches and bug reports to the debian
> package. This split between the user/developer visible sbuild and the
> secret actual buildd is just not in the spirit of Debian.
I believe this is wrong. In words of one of the sbuild package
co-maintainers, "the Debian package is the fork, while the sbuild in
wanna-build is upstream" [1]. And upstreams are not required forward
patches to their respective Debian maintainers, are they?; they just
make new versions publicly available, as already happens here.
[1] http://lists.debian.org/debian-deve...1/msg01463.html
Cheers,
--
Adeodato Simó dato at net.com.org.es
Debian Developer adeodato at debian.org
Listening to: Alan Parsons, vocal: Elmer Gantry - Psychobabble
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-REQUEST@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org
| |
| Henrique de Moraes Holschuh 2005-11-24, 8:49 pm |
| On Fri, 25 Nov 2005, Michael Banck wrote:
> 1. Please drop the `secret' immediately. Unless you really want to call
> http://www.debian.org/devel/buildd `secret'. That your mail got resent
> with the this subject to debian-devel-announce is already stressing it
> *a lot*, IMHO.
I did the forwarding. As far as I am concerned:
1. sbuild has nothing to do with the email sent to d-d-a, and this whole
subthread about sbuild upstream and secrets is insane.
A Debian maintainer must keep close track of upstream, and build a
good enough work relationship with upstream authors to at the very
least get informed when repositories move. sbuild is NO exception
to this.
2. Any changes to something as basic as the package numbering scheme
must be widely announced to all developers, and properly documented.
The fact that such changes are now in effect, and no announcement was
posted to d-d-a within 48h of they being deployed *IS* enough to
*sarcastically* call it a "secret" change alright, unless DAK is still
accepting old-style binary NMUs along with new-style ones (and maybe
even then). Calling it "secret" and actually meaning it is childish, of
course.
I am pretty sure eventually we would get some proper announcement,
but "eventually" ain't good enough IMHO, thus the forwarding.
--
"One disk to rule them all, One disk to find them. One disk to bring
them all and in the darkness grind them. In the Land of Redmond
where the shadows lie." -- The Silicon Valley Tarot
Henrique Holschuh
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-REQUEST@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org
| |
| Goswin von Brederlow 2005-11-25, 7:50 am |
| Wouter Verhelst <wouter@grep.be> writes:
> On Thu, Nov 24, 2005 at 06:51:24PM +0100, Goswin von Brederlow wrote:
>
> It's in Debian, and it's easy to use and understand. If it doesn't
> diverge too far from the sbuild actually on svn.cyberhqz.com, it's also
> good enough to give you a working setup for non-debian systems. IOW,
> it should be close enough to the actual thing to be useful for the
> general public, but cannot be close enough to the actual thing to be
> useful for official build daemons.
Except it isn't working. Since a long time it wasn't able to build
zsh, zsh-beta, bash3 for some unknown reason. It just deadlocks.
Now its worse since the debian sbuild won't interact nicely with the
wanna-build/buildd anymore due to interface changes and the binNMU
feature.
So now the sid sbuild only works standalone. That is a turn for the
worse.
>
> That's one way to look at it.
>
> The other way would be to say that Ryan has recently been actively
> working on improving the code in the wanna-build SVN, and that the
> people maintaining the sbuild package in Debian (Roger?) haven't been
> paying too much attention to their upstream, likely because they didn't
> see the link on buildd.debian.org--a link which I, admittedly, had
> missed out on at first too, because it used to point to
> cvs.linux-m68k.org. There is indeed still a wanna-build CVS repository
> over there, but it's been effectively unmaintained for as long as I can
> remember.
>
> It should also be noted that Ryan, as appropriate for an Open Source
> developer, is happy to review and (provided he doesn't have any
> objections) apply any patches to sbuild or other things, too, as I've
> been able to witness first-hand myself in the past.
I wasn't looking at it as upstream and debian maintainer but more like
a native package with co-maintainers. But yours is a valid point.
It just pains me that Debian does not include all the software to
build Debian.
MfG
Goswin
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-REQUEST@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org
| |
| Goswin von Brederlow 2005-11-25, 7:50 am |
| Michael Banck <mbanck@debian.org> writes:
> On Thu, Nov 24, 2005 at 06:44:42PM +0100, Goswin von Brederlow wrote:
>
> Was that a question? I stated in the mail you replied to that
> wanna-build is now maintained in svn.
Sorry, my bad.
> Still, I don't have time to look at it myself right now, so if somebody
> wants to send a patch, fine, otherwise, we will get to it eventually.
> Unless the release team and/or ftp-masters think this kind of new binNMU
> style should be restricted to the buildds (does the old style still
> work?).
No.
> Michael
MfG
Goswin
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-REQUEST@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org
| |
| Goswin von Brederlow 2005-11-25, 7:50 am |
| Michael Banck <mbanck@debian.org> writes:
> On Thu, Nov 24, 2005 at 06:51:24PM +0100, Goswin von Brederlow wrote:
>
> When the sbuild package got orphaned two years ago or so, I asked Ryan
> whether he would like to maintain it, and he said he was not interested.
> Which is totally fine for me and about everybody else.
>
>
> 1. Please drop the `secret' immediately. Unless you really want to call
> http://www.debian.org/devel/buildd `secret'. That your mail got resent
> with the this subject to debian-devel-announce is already stressing it
> *a lot*, IMHO.
The subject and initial mail is not about sbuild being secret but
about the overall change for Debian. I think that one is
justified. Nothing to do with this subthread.
As for http://www.debian.org/devel/buildd:
$ grep sbuild http://www.debian.org/devel/buildd
<em>wanna-build</em> and calls <em>sbuild</em> to build the packages.
<dt><a href="http://packages.debian.org/sbuild">sbuild</a></dt>
This nice public page only points to the nice public sbuild debian
package. There is no link to the actual sbuild used on buildds.
Further the links for wanna-build and buildd (which probably
indirectly included sbuild) are broken:
http://m68k.debian.org/buildd/getting.html --> connection refused
Did you by chance mean the wanna-build svn link on
http://buildd.debian.org/?
MfG
Goswin
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-REQUEST@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org
| |
| Goswin von Brederlow 2005-11-25, 5:54 pm |
| Adeodato "=?utf-8?B?U2ltw7M=?=" <dato@net.com.org.es> writes:
> * Goswin von Brederlow [Thu, 24 Nov 2005 18:51:24 +0100]:
>
> Hi,
>
>
>
>
> I believe this is wrong. In words of one of the sbuild package
> co-maintainers, "the Debian package is the fork, while the sbuild in
> wanna-build is upstream" [1]. And upstreams are not required forward
> patches to their respective Debian maintainers, are they?; they just
> make new versions publicly available, as already happens here.
>
> [1] http://lists.debian.org/debian-deve...1/msg01463.html
>
> Cheers,
I'm sorry for that. I didn't see sbuild as an upstream + maintainer
package but as a debian package. Developed by Debian people for
Debian. Aparently that was a misconception on my part.
MfG
Goswin
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-REQUEST@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org
| |
| Michael Banck 2005-11-25, 5:54 pm |
| On Fri, Nov 25, 2005 at 02:38:32PM +0100, Goswin von Brederlow wrote:
> Michael Banck <mbanck@debian.org> writes:
>
> The subject and initial mail is not about sbuild being secret but
> about the overall change for Debian. I think that one is
> justified. Nothing to do with this subthread.
Right, these are two different things. However, the binNMU change is
mostly/only useful for the release managers and buildd admins, so I fail
to see why not having documented/announced it less than a week after its
implementation should imply it was done in `secret', as those people are
busy with the next library transition. To make this clear, I totally
welcome your post documenting the new binNMU features while the authors
have been too busy to do so for now.
And the existance of the wanna-build/buildd/sbuild packages is not a
secret, either.
> As for http://www.debian.org/devel/buildd:
>
> $ grep sbuild http://www.debian.org/devel/buildd
> <em>wanna-build</em> and calls <em>sbuild</em> to build the packages.
> <dt><a href="http://packages.debian.org/sbuild">sbuild</a></dt>
>
> This nice public page only points to the nice public sbuild debian
> package. There is no link to the actual sbuild used on buildds.
>
> Further the links for wanna-build and buildd (which probably
> indirectly included sbuild) are broken:
>
> http://m68k.debian.org/buildd/getting.html --> connection refused
The documentation should get fixed, then.
> Did you by chance mean the wanna-build svn link on
> http://buildd.debian.org/?
So it is documented there as well, good.
Michael
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-REQUEST@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org
| |
| Wouter Verhelst 2005-11-25, 5:54 pm |
| On Fri, Nov 25, 2005 at 02:03:12PM +0100, Goswin von Brederlow wrote:
> Wouter Verhelst <wouter@grep.be> writes:
>
> Except it isn't working. Since a long time it wasn't able to build
> zsh, zsh-beta, bash3 for some unknown reason. It just deadlocks.
I think there's a fix for that in svn, not sure though.
> Now its worse since the debian sbuild won't interact nicely with the
> wanna-build/buildd anymore due to interface changes and the binNMU
> feature.
>
> So now the sid sbuild only works standalone. That is a turn for the
> worse.
That's only true at this very moment. Resync with svn, done.
[...]
> It just pains me that Debian does not include all the software to
> build Debian.
Sure it does. It just doesn't include the software that Debian uses to
automatically build packages, but that's not the same thing.
After all, you can build packages in an automated fashion using, e.g.,
pbuilder; and people do actually do this all the time (where else would
I have gotten those FTBFS bugs on doc-linux-nl from? That's an arch:all
package).
--
..../ -/ ---/ .--./ / .--/ .-/ .../ -/ ../ -./ --./ / -.--/ ---/ ..-/ .-./ / -/
.../ --/ ./ / .--/ ../ -/ ..../ / -../ ./ -.-./ ---/ -../ ../ -./ --./ / --/
-.--/ / .../ ../ --./ -./ .-/ -/ ..-/ .-./ ./ .-.-.-/ / --/ ---/ .-./ .../ ./ /
.../ .../ / ---/ ..-/ -/ -../ .-/ -/ ./ -../ / -/ ./ -.-./ ..../ -./ ---/ .-../
---/ --./ -.--/ / .-/ -./ -.--/ .--/ .-/ -.--/ .-.-.-/ / ...-.-/
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-REQUEST@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org
| |
| Goswin von Brederlow 2005-11-25, 5:54 pm |
| Wouter Verhelst <wouter@grep.be> writes:
> On Fri, Nov 25, 2005 at 02:03:12PM +0100, Goswin von Brederlow wrote:
>
> Sure it does. It just doesn't include the software that Debian uses to
> automatically build packages, but that's not the same thing.
Which means not all of it.
> After all, you can build packages in an automated fashion using, e.g.,
> pbuilder; and people do actually do this all the time (where else would
> I have gotten those FTBFS bugs on doc-linux-nl from? That's an arch:all
> package).
>From someone with sbuild setup to build arch:all packages?  ))
MfG
Goswin
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-REQUEST@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org
| |
| Goswin von Brederlow 2005-11-25, 5:54 pm |
| Michael Banck <mbanck@debian.org> writes:
> On Fri, Nov 25, 2005 at 02:38:32PM +0100, Goswin von Brederlow wrote:
>
> Right, these are two different things. However, the binNMU change is
> mostly/only useful for the release managers and buildd admins, so I fail
> to see why not having documented/announced it less than a week after its
> implementation should imply it was done in `secret', as those people are
> busy with the next library transition. To make this clear, I totally
> welcome your post documenting the new binNMU features while the authors
> have been too busy to do so for now.
The point is that the way binNMUs are done (and accepted by DAK) was
_changed_ without discussion or announcement. What should have been
announced was disabling the old manual binNMU feature.
The problem is that people did a binNMU and DAK refused it out of the
blue. The initial mail is just to prevent that in the future.
MfG
Goswin
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-REQUEST@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org
| |
| Nathanael Nerode 2005-11-25, 5:54 pm |
| Blaaaargh!
OK. So I was working on the problem of fixing dpkg-dev so that
foo Depends: foo-data {SourceVersion}, foo-libs {BinaryVersion}
or something similar actually works. By parsing the version numbers.
Now it's apparently been changed under our noses, in such a way that my
proposed
scheme won't work -- and furthermore anyone who implemented their own
version
of such code, in their own package, will find it magically broken.
Thanks to Goswin and Henrique for *notifying* people of this, since
apparently whoever changed it didn't think about the impacts on other
developers.
> Instead binNMU versions are now made by adding +b1 (+b2, +b3) to the
> version and containing a "Source: foo (non-NMU version)" line. The
> later makes it possible to reliable associate binNMUs with their
> source.
So how do we write a package Depends: line now? Apparently the buildd uses
the original source,
and adds a changelog entry -- *but what happens to the {SourceVersion}
substitution?* Does the buildd
alter the substvars file before compiling? Does the {SourceVersion}
substitution end up being the original 1.2-3 source version, or the 1.2-3+b4
version? Whichever it ends up being, *how do we get the other one* if we
need it?
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-REQUEST@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org
| |
| Henrique de Moraes Holschuh 2005-11-25, 8:50 pm |
| On Fri, 25 Nov 2005, Nathanael Nerode wrote:
> OK. So I was working on the problem of fixing dpkg-dev so that
>
> foo Depends: foo-data {SourceVersion}, foo-libs {BinaryVersion}
>
> or something similar actually works. By parsing the version numbers.
I'd very much like debhelper or dpkg-* to give us another variable that
points to the parent version [changelog-wise] when bin NMUs are done, and to
the current version [changelog-wise] otherwise.
Meanwhile, I am using this: unversioned depends and two conflicts: (<<
{Upstream-Version}), (>= {Upstream-Version}.1).
BinNMUs won't break compatibility between arch any and arch all in any of my
packages, and debian revisions breaking them are rare enough that I will
track that by hand, so the above is enough (although far from ideal).
> So how do we write a package Depends: line now? Apparently the buildd uses
> the original source,
See above. We had that problem already, but now we will have to deploy a
real solution instead of hacks. Ain't that nice? :-)
Does anyone have any idea on how to detect if a currently running buind is a
bin NMU or not?
> and adds a changelog entry -- *but what happens to the {SourceVersion}
> substitution?* Does the buildd
> alter the substvars file before compiling? Does the {SourceVersion}
I bet it works in the simplest way possible, i.e. it is set to the latest
changelog entry: the binNMU version.
> substitution end up being the original 1.2-3 source version, or the
> 1.2-3+b4 version? Whichever it ends up being, *how do we get the other
> one* if we need it?
We really need another substvar with different semantics.
--
"One disk to rule them all, One disk to find them. One disk to bring
them all and in the darkness grind them. In the Land of Redmond
where the shadows lie." -- The Silicon Valley Tarot
Henrique Holschuh
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-REQUEST@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org
| |
| Andreas Metzler 2005-11-26, 2:50 am |
| Henrique de Moraes Holschuh <hmh@debian.org> wrote:
[...]
> Meanwhile, I am using this: unversioned depends and two conflicts: (<<
> {Upstream-Version}), (>= {Upstream-Version}.1).
Depends: foo (>={Upstream-Version}), foo (<< {Upstream-Version}.1)
instead should also work without the need for a cumbersome <<conflict.
cu andreas
PS: I've spent no thought whether {Upstream-Version}.1 is really
correct, it depends a lot on the versioning upstream chooses.
--
The 'Galactic Cleaning' policy undertaken by Emperor Zhark is a personal
vision of the emperor's, and its inclusion in this work does not constitute
tacit approval by the author or the publisher for any such projects,
howsoever undertaken. (c) Jasper Ffforde
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-REQUEST@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org
| |
| Henrique de Moraes Holschuh 2005-11-26, 7:50 am |
| On Sat, 26 Nov 2005, Andreas Metzler wrote:
> Henrique de Moraes Holschuh <hmh@debian.org> wrote:
> [...]
>
> Depends: foo (>={Upstream-Version}), foo (<< {Upstream-Version}.1)
>
> instead should also work without the need for a cumbersome <<conflict.
Yes. It is just a matter of which one you like better. You could also have
one depends and one conflicts instead of two conflicts or two depends.
--
"One disk to rule them all, One disk to find them. One disk to bring
them all and in the darkness grind them. In the Land of Redmond
where the shadows lie." -- The Silicon Valley Tarot
Henrique Holschuh
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-REQUEST@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org
| |
| Adeodato Simó 2005-11-26, 5:50 pm |
| * Henrique de Moraes Holschuh [Sat, 26 Nov 2005 08:42:41 -0200]:
> Yes. It is just a matter of which one you like better. You could also have
> one depends and one conflicts instead of two conflicts or two depends.
Versioned conflicts are said to increase apt's trouble to upgrade from
one stable release to the next one. I have never heard the same
comment applied to Depends: (<< V) relationshipts.
--
Adeodato Simó dato at net.com.org.es
Debian Developer adeodato at debian.org
Y sobre todo, tienes mucho de gilipollas.
-- B.C.S. addressing P.G.i.Q in b8g
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-REQUEST@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org
| |
| Andreas Metzler 2005-11-26, 5:50 pm |
| Henrique de Moraes Holschuh <hmh@debian.org> wrote:
> On Sat, 26 Nov 2005, Andreas Metzler wrote:
[vbcol=seagreen]
[vbcol=seagreen]
[vbcol=seagreen]
> Yes. It is just a matter of which one you like better.
[...]
Afaiui the different possibilties are not equivalent, because
conflicts need to be satisfied before installation, depends only at
configuration (after unpacking, ...).
Quoting policy:
| A Conflicts entry should almost never have an "earlier than" version
| clause. This would prevent dpkg from upgrading or installing the
| package which declared such a conflict until the upgrade or removal of
| the conflicted-with package had been completed.
cu andreas
--
The 'Galactic Cleaning' policy undertaken by Emperor Zhark is a personal
vision of the emperor's, and its inclusion in this work does not constitute
tacit approval by the author or the publisher for any such projects,
howsoever undertaken. (c) Jasper Ffforde
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-REQUEST@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org
| |
|
|
| Roger Leigh 2005-11-26, 8:49 pm |
| -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
Michael Banck <mbanck@debian.org> writes:
> On Thu, Nov 24, 2005 at 11:02:36AM +0000, Roger Leigh wrote:
>
> It is a SVN repo now, the one used by the buildd infrastructure.
Thanks, I'm going through the changes now.
>
> Last time I looked the changes seemed to be pretty big, but merging is
> of course a mid-term goal.
I started merging the changes tonight, and I'll try to get through
some more tomorrow. Some of the changes appear to be dysfunctional,
so I'm testing as I go along.
http://cvs.alioth.debian.org/cgi-bi...ot=buildd-tools
Once the current SVN changes are merged, I'll reindent the source to
match the 4 col SVN intentation, re-diff it and manually merge any
outstanding changes. Once we are done, I'll see if we can push back
the changes we've made to make it more user-friendly. Is there a
mailing list for "upstream" to send patches to?
Regards,
Roger
- --
Roger Leigh
Printing on GNU/Linux? http://gimp-print.sourceforge.net/
Debian GNU/Linux http://www.debian.org/
GPG Public Key: 0x25BFB848. Please sign and encrypt your mail.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.2 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Processed by Mailcrypt 3.5.8+ <http://mailcrypt.sourceforge.net/>
iD8DBQFDiP9yVcFcaSW/uEgRAlSXAJ9bUT/uehFKNIoyAo4Ymdo3GXYpMwCghfym
sqnm3uGVMnZ302nkmJiaUlQ=
=Uw5X
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-REQUEST@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org
| |
| Roger Leigh 2005-11-28, 8:49 pm |
| -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
Wouter Verhelst <wouter@grep.be> writes:
> On Thu, Nov 24, 2005 at 06:51:24PM +0100, Goswin von Brederlow wrote:
>
> That's one way to look at it.
>
> The other way would be to say that Ryan has recently been actively
> working on improving the code in the wanna-build SVN, and that the
> people maintaining the sbuild package in Debian (Roger?) haven't been
> paying too much attention to their upstream, likely because they didn't
> see the link on buildd.debian.org--a link which I, admittedly, had
> missed out on at first too, because it used to point to
> cvs.linux-m68k.org. There is indeed still a wanna-build CVS repository
> over there, but it's been effectively unmaintained for as long as I can
> remember.
This is very true. I wasn't aware of the SVN repository until it was
mentioned in this thread. Over the weekend, I have merged almost all
the SVN changes:
http://cvs.alioth.debian.org/cgi-bi...ot=buildd-tools
http://lists.alioth.debian.org/pipe...ber/000388.html
As you mentioned, due to cvs.linux-m68k.org being unmaintained for
years, the code in the Debian package (maintained by Rick Younie, now
group maintained by Francesco Paolo Lovergine, Michael Banck and I),
and the code used by the buildds has diverged over the years. Even
after the above merge the diff is still around 1000 lines, which I
hope we can reduce much further if we can merge the changes both ways
to reduce the differences as much as possible. PERL being Perl, so
far all the merging has been by hand, and going through the remaining
huge diff by hand will take some time.
Regards,
Roger
- --
Roger Leigh
Printing on GNU/Linux? http://gimp-print.sourceforge.net/
Debian GNU/Linux http://www.debian.org/
GPG Public Key: 0x25BFB848. Please sign and encrypt your mail.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.2 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Processed by Mailcrypt 3.5.8+ <http://mailcrypt.sourceforge.net/>
iD8DBQFDi48wVcFcaSW/ uEgRAgf2AJ9OeKLykTblYCu9nhVatvBm2lRfeQCg
srpM
D6zpcMr6kY7X+WetUgTjo1Q=
=Rv3N
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-REQUEST@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org
| |
| Goswin von Brederlow 2005-11-29, 7:51 am |
| Roger Leigh <rleigh@whinlatter.ukfsn.org> writes:
> This is very true. I wasn't aware of the SVN repository until it was
> mentioned in this thread. Over the weekend, I have merged almost all
> the SVN changes:
Many thanks for the work. It is greatly appreciated.
MfG
Goswin
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-REQUEST@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org
| |
| Goswin von Brederlow 2005-11-29, 7:51 am |
| Andreas Metzler <ametzler@downhill.at.eu.org> writes:
> Henrique de Moraes Holschuh <hmh@debian.org> wrote:
>
>
>
> [...]
>
> Afaiui the different possibilties are not equivalent, because
> conflicts need to be satisfied before installation, depends only at
> configuration (after unpacking, ...).
>
> Quoting policy:
> | A Conflicts entry should almost never have an "earlier than" version
> | clause. This would prevent dpkg from upgrading or installing the
> | package which declared such a conflict until the upgrade or removal of
> | the conflicted-with package had been completed.
> cu andreas
A conflicts is also not checked when other packages are upgraded
(downgraded). In practice that means that one can install the
conflicting old version when downgrading without also downgrading the
conflicting package. With depends dpkg fill error about it.
MfG
Goswin
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-REQUEST@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org
|
|
|
|
|