Debian Bug report logs - #311724
cdbs: Automatic update of debian/control, first paragraph, broken

Reply or subscribe to this bug.

Toggle useless messages

Message #5 received at submit@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox, reply):

From: Joerg Jaspert <joerg@debian.org>

To: Debian Bug Tracking System <submit@bugs.debian.org>

Subject: cdbs: Automatic update of debian/control, first paragraph, broken

Date: Fri, 03 Jun 2005 00:08:01 +0200

[Message part 1 (text/plain, inline)]

Package: cdbs
Version: 0.4.30
Severity: normal

Hi Maintainer,

First of it: Im *not* after getting cdbs to die or something which I
already heard from some, it is *this* one mis-feature im against.

Im talking about the "Update Build-Depends on the fly" thing and the bad
things that it produces.

Sorry, but Packages with such autogenerated build-dependencies should
not go in our archive, for various reasons, the biggest one is:

- Modifying them on the fly can mean that they change without you noticing
  it. This is not bad for the actual built you do, but now think about later
  builds. Our autobuilders will get the changed Build-Dependencies and then
  may built a different thing.
  Or think about NMUs (eg. for RC fixes and stuff) or in worst case even
  security updates.

A few examples of autogenerated Build-Dependencies which I found in NEW
are (trimmed for line-size):
1: debhelper (>=4.2.0), cdbs (>=0.4.23-1.1), build-essential,
   debhelper (>=4.1.0), quilt, patchutils (>=0.2.25),
   cdbs (>=0.4.27-1), python-dev

  Note: I havent doubled the debhelper or cdbs ones, they ARE this way.

2: cdbs (>= 0.4.23-1.1), build-essential, debhelper (>= 4.1.0),
   patchutils (>= 0.2.25)
  Note: Here it is mainly b-e - maybe related to an older bug in cdbs,
   but still an example.

I could paste more, but would make mail unneccessary long. :)

A solution to this thing is simple:

  Add another target in the cdbs thing, that is *never* called automaic
  in the build-process, only if the maintainer runs it with debian/rules
  target and let that one do the update thingie. Of course maintainer
  needs to look if it is correct then.

The only exception from modifying something in the first paragraph of
debian/control is the uploaders field, as it would be insane for some big
group-maintained package to do that by hand, but thats it.


-- 
bye Joerg
"That's just f***ing great, now the bar for being a cool guy in free
software just got raised. It used to be you just had to write a million
lines of useful code. Now you've got to get a subpoena from SCO to be cool."

[Message part 2 (application/pgp-signature, inline)]

Message #10 received at 311724@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox, reply):

From: Martin Quinson <martin.quinson@loria.fr>

To: Joerg Jaspert <joerg@debian.org>, 311724@bugs.debian.org

Subject: Re: [Build-common-hackers] Bug#311724: cdbs: Automatic update of debian/control, first paragraph, broken

Date: Wed, 8 Jun 2005 17:15:12 +0200

[Message part 1 (text/plain, inline)]

On Fri, Jun 03, 2005 at 12:08:01AM +0200, Joerg Jaspert wrote:
> 
> Im talking about the "Update Build-Depends on the fly" thing and the bad
> things that it produces.
> 
> Sorry, but Packages with such autogenerated build-dependencies should
> not go in our archive, for various reasons, the biggest one is:
> 
> - Modifying them on the fly can mean that they change without you noticing
>   it. This is not bad for the actual built you do, but now think about later
>   builds. Our autobuilders will get the changed Build-Dependencies and then
>   may built a different thing.
>   Or think about NMUs (eg. for RC fixes and stuff) or in worst case even
>   security updates.

I am playing with the idea of having cdbs ensuring that the human provided
dependencies are enough. I mean, if cdbs various part say that we need this:
> 1: debhelper (>=4.2.0), cdbs (>=0.4.23-1.1), build-essential,
>    debhelper (>=4.1.0), quilt, patchutils (>=0.2.25),
>    cdbs (>=0.4.27-1), python-dev

then make sure that the build dependencies hand-written in the control file
ensure at least 
debhelper (>=4.2.0), cdbs (>=0.4.27-1), quilt, patchutils (>=0.2.25), python-dev

Ie, that the set of human provided build-dependencies encompass the script
demanded ones. Would it be ok for you to stop the compilation process if
it's not the case (ie, if the human forgot one build-dep, according to the
scripts), or would you consider this as just another form of the pure evil
you are talking in your mail?


Anyway, I'm struggling with implementations issue here and don't plan to do
anything before a while. Of course, I could do a little perl script
somewhere under /usr/lib doing the verification, but I was kind of wondering
if such thing already exists in dpkg or apt or not...


Bye, Mt.

[signature.asc (application/pgp-signature, inline)]

Message #15 received at 311724@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox, reply):

From: Marc Haber <mh+debian-packages@zugschlus.de>

To: Martin Quinson <martin.quinson@loria.fr>, 311724@bugs.debian.org, 311724-submitter@bugs.debian.org

Cc: Marc Haber <mh+debian-packages@zugschlus.de>

Subject: Re: Re: [Build-common-hackers] Bug#311724: cdbs: Automatic update of debian/control, first paragraph, broken

Date: Sat, 23 Jul 2005 12:39:40 +0200

On Wed, Jun 08, 2005 at 05:15:12PM +0200, Martin Quinson wrote:
> Anyway, I'm struggling with implementations issue here and don't plan to do
> anything before a while.

In the meantime, I'd really appreciate a short HOWTO giving directions
how to invoke the auto-update process from a dedicated target so that
DEB_AUTO_UPDATE_DEBIAN_CONTROL can be removed from my debian/rules
files while still having the automatic process available for manual
invocation.

Greetings
Marc

-- 
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Marc Haber         | "I don't trust Computers. They | Mailadresse im Header
Mannheim, Germany  |  lose things."    Winona Ryder | Fon: *49 621 72739834
Nordisch by Nature |  How to make an American Quilt | Fax: *49 621 72739835

Message #23 received at 311724@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox, reply):

From: Sam Morris <sam@robots.org.uk>

To: 311724@bugs.debian.org

Cc: Marc Haber <mh+debian-packages@zugschlus.de>

Subject: Manual invocation of the rule to regenerate debian/control

Date: Thu, 04 Aug 2005 01:15:24 +0100

This does the trick:

fakeroot debian/rules debian/control DEB_AUTO_UPDATE_DEBIAN_CONTROL:=yes

-- 
Sam Morris
http://robots.org.uk/

PGP key id 5EA01078
3412 EA18 1277 354B 991B  C869 B219 7FDB 5EA0 1078

Send a report that this bug log contains spam.