Debian Bug report logs - #478524
debian/rules build target requires installing B-D-I

Reply or subscribe to this bug.

Toggle useless messages

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

From: Bastian Blank <waldi@debian.org>

To: submit@bugs.debian.org

Subject: libtommath - FTBFS: latex: command not found

Date: Sat, 5 Apr 2008 16:26:01 +0200

Package: libtommath
Version: 0.39-1
Severity: serious

There was an error while trying to autobuild your package:

> Automatic build of libtommath_0.39-1 on debian-31.osdl.marist.edu by sbuild/s390 98
[...]
> dh_testdir
> /usr/bin/make manual docs
> make[1]: Entering directory `/build/buildd/libtommath-0.39'
> echo "hello" > bn.ind
> latex bn > /dev/null
> /bin/sh: latex: command not found
> make[1]: *** [mandvi] Error 127
> make[1]: Leaving directory `/build/buildd/libtommath-0.39'
> make: *** [build-indep] Error 2
> dpkg-buildpackage: failure: debian/rules build gave error exit status 2
> ******************************************************************************
> Build finished at 20080403-1022
> FAILED [dpkg-buildpackage died]

Message #10 received at 474413-done@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox, reply):

From: Joe Nahmias <jello@debian.org>

To: Bastian Blank <waldi@debian.org>

Cc: 474413-done@bugs.debian.org

Subject: Re: Bug#474413: libtommath - FTBFS: latex: command not found

Date: Mon, 7 Apr 2008 05:28:07 +0000

On Sat, Apr 05, 2008 at 04:26:01PM +0200, Bastian Blank wrote:
> > latex bn > /dev/null
> > /bin/sh: latex: command not found

Hmm, it seems that you called the build (rather than the build-arch)
target in debian/rules without installing Build-Depends-Indep.  Per
policy section 7.6:

    The `Build-Depends-Indep' and `Build-Conflicts-Indep' fields must
    be satisfied when any of the following targets is invoked:
    `build', `build-indep', `binary' and `binary-indep'.

Please fix your auto-builder to either use build-arch or to install
B-D-I.

Thanks,
--Joe

Message #15 received at 474413@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox, reply):

From: Bernd Zeimetz <bernd@bzed.de>

To: 474413@bugs.debian.org, control@bugs.debian.org

Cc: waldi@debian.org

Subject: libtommath - FTBFS: debian/rules broken.

Date: Fri, 25 Apr 2008 00:40:06 +0200

found 474413 0.39-1
severity 474413 serious
thanks

Hi,

this bug is not a problem of the buildd but of your broken debian/rules
file.
As binary-arch depends on install, which depends on build, which depends
on build-arch AND build-indep, the build-indep target is called even if
you build an arch:any package. You need to fix your install target (or
use something like install-indep and install-arch) to avoid running
build-indep while installing your binary-arch stuff.

Cheers,

Bernd
-- 
 Bernd Zeimetz                           Debian GNU/Linux Developer
 GPG Fingerprint: 06C8 C9A2 EAAD E37E 5B2C BE93 067A AD04 C93B FF79

Message #24 received at 474413@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox, reply):

From: Joe Nahmias <jello@debian.org>

To: Bernd Zeimetz <bernd@bzed.de>, 474413@bugs.debian.org

Cc: waldi@debian.org

Subject: Re: Bug#474413: libtommath - FTBFS: debian/rules broken.

Date: Mon, 28 Apr 2008 06:32:46 +0000

tags 474413 + pending
thanks

On Fri, Apr 25, 2008 at 12:40:06AM +0200, Bernd Zeimetz wrote:
> As binary-arch depends on install, which depends on build, which depends
> on build-arch AND build-indep, the build-indep target is called even if
> you build an arch:any package. You need to fix your install target (or
> use something like install-indep and install-arch) to avoid running
> build-indep while installing your binary-arch stuff.

Seems reasonable to me.  Have made the fix locally, but am away from my
key.  Will upload shortly.

--Joe

Message #31 received at 474413-close@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox, reply):

From: Joe Nahmias <jello@debian.org>

To: 474413-close@bugs.debian.org

Subject: Bug#474413: fixed in libtommath 0.39-2

Date: Mon, 28 Apr 2008 07:17:11 +0000

Source: libtommath
Source-Version: 0.39-2

We believe that the bug you reported is fixed in the latest version of
libtommath, which is due to be installed in the Debian FTP archive:

libtommath-dev_0.39-2_i386.deb
  to pool/main/libt/libtommath/libtommath-dev_0.39-2_i386.deb
libtommath-docs_0.39-2_all.deb
  to pool/main/libt/libtommath/libtommath-docs_0.39-2_all.deb
libtommath0_0.39-2_i386.deb
  to pool/main/libt/libtommath/libtommath0_0.39-2_i386.deb
libtommath_0.39-2.diff.gz
  to pool/main/libt/libtommath/libtommath_0.39-2.diff.gz
libtommath_0.39-2.dsc
  to pool/main/libt/libtommath/libtommath_0.39-2.dsc



A summary of the changes between this version and the previous one is
attached.

Thank you for reporting the bug, which will now be closed.  If you
have further comments please address them to 474413@bugs.debian.org,
and the maintainer will reopen the bug report if appropriate.

Debian distribution maintenance software
pp.
Joe Nahmias <jello@debian.org> (supplier of updated libtommath package)

(This message was generated automatically at their request; if you
believe that there is a problem with it please contact the archive
administrators by mailing ftpmaster@debian.org)


-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

Format: 1.8
Date: Mon, 28 Apr 2008 02:11:12 -0400
Source: libtommath
Binary: libtommath-docs libtommath-dev libtommath0
Architecture: source all i386
Version: 0.39-2
Distribution: unstable
Urgency: low
Maintainer: Joe Nahmias <jello@debian.org>
Changed-By: Joe Nahmias <jello@debian.org>
Description: 
 libtommath-dev - multiple-precision integer library [development files]
 libtommath-docs - multiple-precision integer library [documentation]
 libtommath0 - multiple-precision integer library [runtime]
Closes: 474413
Changes: 
 libtommath (0.39-2) unstable; urgency=low
 .
   * debian/rules: install target should only depend on build-arch which caused
     FTBFS on the buildds, closes: #474413.
   * debian/rules: make build-indep and build-arch .PHONY targets
   * debian/watch: add call to uupdate on new upstream version
Checksums-Sha1: 
 4df2b02b004b3da5c1268c86936547c30b2c937f 1107 libtommath_0.39-2.dsc
 4f47e157fc8edb2f7fcc5f7d910293a7ea6cf456 2471 libtommath_0.39-2.diff.gz
 c3b14ffd89bc7e2ca19c00240849b451e7c15307 1266044 libtommath-docs_0.39-2_all.deb
 abd9af71f815c7f0eb8cbe78e0b8db043a8dd202 70064 libtommath-dev_0.39-2_i386.deb
 26b0877a83be60feafd83c628e8dd36e8ac33ac9 52500 libtommath0_0.39-2_i386.deb
Checksums-Sha256: 
 576a78fa06cc8d8d4249385800f459d2ed91f6968f9588461c2a019ccef83961 1107 libtommath_0.39-2.dsc
 227e7885bdefd5bc9f276f2761ebe9ce1b571f6597b2aa9737cab5d3abc032d2 2471 libtommath_0.39-2.diff.gz
 b122df55c6b0d4a09eb295bfb326fed6bb2f22b47c03c18c8b6b4794e81b7ee3 1266044 libtommath-docs_0.39-2_all.deb
 eebcebc8d1a07f79e6ed609258a99e691cd8a192d01381335cc042bf62c4e352 70064 libtommath-dev_0.39-2_i386.deb
 e404a89faa695ae9df044762ebb84851e20abd57aa88313859ba50361c7dcddf 52500 libtommath0_0.39-2_i386.deb
Files: 
 91de6a5a20d94e315cc98c8bacb7f828 1107 libs extra libtommath_0.39-2.dsc
 c139dd57fa62397b15b8f24ef9c0d5bc 2471 libs extra libtommath_0.39-2.diff.gz
 039f0f7759d704250db3c6887be7500e 1266044 doc extra libtommath-docs_0.39-2_all.deb
 ce1c1972bd66eb05f5ed4df6915ab9f8 70064 libdevel extra libtommath-dev_0.39-2_i386.deb
 0418a91434c0531115e20ad5445d4742 52500 libs extra libtommath0_0.39-2_i386.deb

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.6 (GNU/Linux)

iD8DBQFIFXIfULacnzmLNx0RAtmqAKClu7CkqSIsmOmmY+c1uoo3/c240wCfWCzw
5hK9C41LCpnUPqrOyJXyzpg=
=tpi7
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

Message #40 received at 474413@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox, reply):

From: Joe Nahmias <jello@debian.org>

To: Bastian Blank <waldi@debian.org>, Bernd Zeimetz <bernd@bzed.de>, Martin Zobel-Helas <zobel@debian.org>

Cc: 474413@bugs.debian.org

Subject: Problem with autobuild of libtommath/0.39-2

Date: Tue, 29 Apr 2008 15:10:32 +0000

clone 474413 -1
retitle -1 debian/rules build target requires installing B-D-I
reassign -1 sbuild
blocks 474413 by -1
thanks

Hello,

Well, I made the change and now calling binary-arch target of
debian/rules no longer runs latex.

However, as you can see on line 156 of
http://buildd.debian.org/fetch.cgi?pkg=libtommath;ver=0.39-2;arch=s390;stamp=1209376922,
sbuild is actually calling the build target -- not the binary-arch
target as previously asserted.  This, as I mentioned in my first reply,
requires the installation of B-D-I as per policy 7.6.

--Joe

Message #55 received at 478524@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox, reply):

From: Joe Nahmias <jello@debian.org>

To: Riku Voipio <riku.voipio@iki.fi>

Cc: 478524@bugs.debian.org, 479556@bugs.debian.org, 474413@bugs.debian.org

Subject: Re: Bug#474413: Problem with autobuild of libtommath/0.39-2

Date: Tue, 6 May 2008 19:41:10 +0000

On Mon, May 05, 2008 at 11:57:55PM +0300, Riku Voipio wrote:
> Lets not complicate this matter with the age-long build/build-arch
> discussion. libtommath needs add the build-dependencies enough to
> to get through debian/rules build for the time being.

Maybe I'm missing something, but I don't understand why the build target
is called in the first place.  Can't you just run "debian/rules
binary-arch" -- which is mandated by policy -- and everything will be ok
because of the target dependancies in debian/rules.  Why use build at
all -- especially since dpkg-buildpackage can't determine the "right"
thing with build/build-arch?!?

And I would further argue that it's a bug for sbuild to use
dpkg-buildpackage (as it's currently implemented, using the build
target) without installing B-D-I.  IOW, sbuild should fix this by
installing B-D-I to work around the dpkg-buildpackage issue, or use some
other method (run "debian/rules clean; debian/rules binary-arch"
manually) to build the arch-only portions of packages.  Then, when the
issue with build/build-arch is finally resolved, only sbuild has to be
changed -- rather than make every packager fix this for each and every
package.

--Joe

Message #60 received at 478524@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox, reply):

From: Roger Leigh <rleigh@whinlatter.ukfsn.org>

To: Joe Nahmias <jello@debian.org>

Cc: 478524@bugs.debian.org, Riku Voipio <riku.voipio@iki.fi>, 479556@bugs.debian.org, 474413@bugs.debian.org

Subject: Re: [Buildd-tools-devel] Bug#478524: Bug#474413: Problem with autobuild of libtommath/0.39-2

Date: Tue, 06 May 2008 21:36:37 +0100

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

Joe Nahmias <jello@debian.org> writes:

> On Mon, May 05, 2008 at 11:57:55PM +0300, Riku Voipio wrote:
>> Lets not complicate this matter with the age-long build/build-arch
>> discussion. libtommath needs add the build-dependencies enough to
>> to get through debian/rules build for the time being.
>
> Maybe I'm missing something, but I don't understand why the build target
> is called in the first place.  Can't you just run "debian/rules
> binary-arch" -- which is mandated by policy -- and everything will be ok
> because of the target dependancies in debian/rules.  Why use build at
> all -- especially since dpkg-buildpackage can't determine the "right"
> thing with build/build-arch?!?

I discussed this yesterday on #debian-devel.  The main issues are

- it's not possible to robustly determine if debian/rules contains a
  build-arch or build-indep target due to things like pattern rules.
  There are some hacky ways to do this, but these would not be
  reliable.  Ideally, make needs to provide a means of querying if a
  target is present.
- most packages do not yet contain a build-arch|build-indep target,
  and policy currently makes this optional.  Calling "debian/rules
  binary-arch" will break a lot of packages.
- moving to requiring these targets is something that would need to be
  done after the release of Lenny, as a release goal for Lenny+1.

> And I would further argue that it's a bug for sbuild to use
> dpkg-buildpackage (as it's currently implemented, using the build
> target) without installing B-D-I.  IOW, sbuild should fix this by
> installing B-D-I to work around the dpkg-buildpackage issue, or use some
> other method (run "debian/rules clean; debian/rules binary-arch"
> manually) to build the arch-only portions of packages.  Then, when the
> issue with build/build-arch is finally resolved, only sbuild has to be
> changed -- rather than make every packager fix this for each and every
> package.

I could fix this in sbuild, but unfortunately the packaged sbuild
(which we maintain) is not the same as that used by the actual Debian
autobuilders (which has a separate maintainer), and so this would not
really help.  Hopefully at some point the autobuilders can switch to
the buildd-tools code, but the buildd/wanna-build part isn't ready for
that yet.  It will hopefully be ready after Lenny, but I can't promise
anything.


Regards,
Roger

-- 
  .''`.  Roger Leigh
 : :' :  Debian GNU/Linux             http://people.debian.org/~rleigh/
 `. `'   Printing on GNU/Linux?       http://gutenprint.sourceforge.net/
   `-    GPG Public Key: 0x25BFB848   Please GPG sign your mail.

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

Message #65 received at 478524@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox, reply):

From: Joe Nahmias <jello@debian.org>

To: Roger Leigh <rleigh@whinlatter.ukfsn.org>

Cc: 478524@bugs.debian.org, Riku Voipio <riku.voipio@iki.fi>, 479556@bugs.debian.org, 474413@bugs.debian.org

Subject: Re: Problem with autobuild of libtommath/0.39-2

Date: Wed, 7 May 2008 00:26:42 +0000

Hi Roger,

On Tue, May 06, 2008 at 09:36:37PM +0100, Roger Leigh wrote:
> Joe Nahmias <jello@debian.org> writes:
[snip]
> I discussed this yesterday on #debian-devel.  The main issues are

Sorry I missed it, had I known I would've liked to participate.

> - it's not possible to robustly determine if debian/rules contains a
>   build-arch or build-indep target due to things like pattern rules.
>   There are some hacky ways to do this, but these would not be
>   reliable.  Ideally, make needs to provide a means of querying if a
>   target is present.

OK.

> - most packages do not yet contain a build-arch|build-indep target,
>   and policy currently makes this optional.  Calling "debian/rules
>   binary-arch" will break a lot of packages.

Um, my reading of policy says that BINARY-arch is required and should
depend on the appropriate targets to build the package as necessary.
So, I don't see why dpkg-buildpackage can't simply run:

...
  debian/rules clean
  debian/rules binary-arch
...

All this would do is potentially expose bugs in packages that are not
currently policy-compliant in terms of the target dependancies, of which
I doubt there are very many due to dh_make templates and the like.

> - moving to requiring these targets is something that would need to be
>   done after the release of Lenny, as a release goal for Lenny+1.

I understand for BUILD-arch; but BINARY-arch is required and has been as
far back as I can remember (corrections welcome).

> > And I would further argue that it's a bug for sbuild to use
> > dpkg-buildpackage (as it's currently implemented, using the build
> > target) without installing B-D-I.  IOW, sbuild should fix this by
> > installing B-D-I to work around the dpkg-buildpackage issue, or use some
> > other method (run "debian/rules clean; debian/rules binary-arch"
> > manually) to build the arch-only portions of packages.  Then, when the
> > issue with build/build-arch is finally resolved, only sbuild has to be
> > changed -- rather than make every packager fix this for each and every
> > package.
> 
> I could fix this in sbuild, but unfortunately the packaged sbuild
> (which we maintain) is not the same as that used by the actual Debian
> autobuilders (which has a separate maintainer), and so this would not
> really help.  Hopefully at some point the autobuilders can switch to
> the buildd-tools code, but the buildd/wanna-build part isn't ready for
> that yet.  It will hopefully be ready after Lenny, but I can't promise
> anything.

Ah, it seems I'm barking up the wrong tree...
Well, I would certainly suggest that you fix this, but I guess it won't
do me all that much good :(

Thanks for the information though and if I can help in any way, please
feel free to ask.
--Joe

Message #70 received at 478524@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox, reply):

From: Guillem Jover <guillem@debian.org>

To: Joe Nahmias <jello@debian.org>, 479556@bugs.debian.org

Cc: Riku Voipio <riku.voipio@iki.fi>, 478524@bugs.debian.org, 474413@bugs.debian.org

Subject: Re: Bug#479556: Bug#474413: Problem with autobuild of libtommath/0.39-2

Date: Wed, 7 May 2008 05:49:23 +0300

On Tue, 2008-05-06 at 19:41:10 +0000, Joe Nahmias wrote:
> Maybe I'm missing something, but I don't understand why the build target
> is called in the first place.  Can't you just run "debian/rules
> binary-arch" -- which is mandated by policy -- and everything will be ok
> because of the target dependancies in debian/rules.  Why use build at
> all -- especially since dpkg-buildpackage can't determine the "right"
> thing with build/build-arch?!?

build does not require root privs, binary-* do.

regards,
guillem

Message #75 received at 478524@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox, reply):

From: Riku Voipio <riku.voipio@iki.fi>

To: Joe Nahmias <jello@debian.org>

Cc: 478524@bugs.debian.org, 479556@bugs.debian.org, 474413@bugs.debian.org

Subject: Re: Bug#474413: Problem with autobuild of libtommath/0.39-2

Date: Wed, 7 May 2008 14:48:53 +0300

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

On Tue, May 06, 2008 at 07:41:10PM +0000, Joe Nahmias wrote:
> On Mon, May 05, 2008 at 11:57:55PM +0300, Riku Voipio wrote:
> > Lets not complicate this matter with the age-long build/build-arch
> > discussion. libtommath needs add the build-dependencies enough to
> > to get through debian/rules build for the time being.

> Maybe I'm missing something [...]

Yes. You missed the part where I requested not complicate the issue.
dpkg-buildpackage/sbuild will be made better eventually. Will happen
faster if someone actually shows a patch that uses build-arch and
demonstrates that it will break building of <1% packages. Currently
it seems people prefer to just talk about it and hypothise about problems
that could potentially materialize in some parallax universe rather than
provide patches and testresults of full archive rebuilds.

So for now, no furious handwaving towards the policy/dpkg/sbuild etc
is going to help your package a) getting built b) getting to
testing/lenny.

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

Message #80 received at 478524@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox, reply):

From: Joe Nahmias <jello@debian.org>

To: Guillem Jover <guillem@debian.org>

Cc: 479556@bugs.debian.org, 478524@bugs.debian.org, 474413@bugs.debian.org

Subject: Re: Problem with autobuild of libtommath/0.39-2

Date: Wed, 7 May 2008 15:22:19 +0000

On Wed, May 07, 2008 at 05:49:23AM +0300, Guillem Jover wrote:
> On Tue, 2008-05-06 at 19:41:10 +0000, Joe Nahmias wrote:
> > Maybe I'm missing something, but I don't understand why the build target
> > is called in the first place.  Can't you just run "debian/rules
> > binary-arch" -- which is mandated by policy -- and everything will be ok
> > because of the target dependancies in debian/rules.  Why use build at
> > all -- especially since dpkg-buildpackage can't determine the "right"
> > thing with build/build-arch?!?
> 
> build does not require root privs, binary-* do.

So what?  dpkg-buildpackage already makes use of the appropriate binary
target, so there's no additional requirement for it.  All I'm suggesting
is to skip the build step (ie. comment out line 364), since it is
uneccessary and will be handled by the makefile dependancies.

I only wish I had access to resources so that I could test this against
the entire archive.

--Joe

Message #85 received at 478524@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox, reply):

From: Joe Nahmias <jello@debian.org>

To: Riku Voipio <riku.voipio@iki.fi>

Cc: 478524@bugs.debian.org, 479556@bugs.debian.org, 474413@bugs.debian.org

Subject: Re: Problem with autobuild of libtommath/0.39-2

Date: Wed, 7 May 2008 15:45:32 +0000

Hi Riku,

On Wed, May 07, 2008 at 02:48:53PM +0300, Riku Voipio wrote:
> On Tue, May 06, 2008 at 07:41:10PM +0000, Joe Nahmias wrote:
> > On Mon, May 05, 2008 at 11:57:55PM +0300, Riku Voipio wrote:
> > > Lets not complicate this matter with the age-long build/build-arch
> > > discussion. libtommath needs add the build-dependencies enough to
> > > to get through debian/rules build for the time being.
> 
> > Maybe I'm missing something [...]
> 
> Yes. You missed the part where I requested not complicate the issue.
> dpkg-buildpackage/sbuild will be made better eventually. Will happen
> faster if someone actually shows a patch that uses build-arch and
> demonstrates that it will break building of <1% packages. Currently
> it seems people prefer to just talk about it and hypothise about problems
> that could potentially materialize in some parallax universe rather than
> provide patches and testresults of full archive rebuilds.

I agree, it's not complicated -- fix your buildd software (or
environment, if you pefer) to install B-D-I if you're going to use the
build target.  It's not a bug in my package if you use faulty
software/environment in your buildd, that doesn't follow policy's
requirements for building debian packages, and then the build fails
because you didn't follow the instructions.  Nobody is forcing you to
install only B-D and not B-D-I and then use dpkg-buildpackage which uses
the build target.

Furthermore, I have an idea that avoids the whole complicated build-arch
issue entirely, which you have not addressed or responded to.  I'd be
happy to provide a patch (comment out line 364 in dpkg-buildpackage) but
I don't have the resources to do a full archive rebuild to test it.  Can
you or anyone else reading this help me out with that?

> So for now, no furious handwaving towards the policy/dpkg/sbuild etc
> is going to help your package a) getting built b) getting to
> testing/lenny.

It's already in testing/lenny, albeit only for one arch.  I could build
the package for each arch manually -- and with proper environment and
software it would work just fine; but, I'll probably end up copying the
B-D-I into B-D to avoid the hassle.  I just hope you realize that the
true problem/bug is in the current buildd b0rkage that has become the
status quo -- not in anything I did in the packaging.

--Joe

Message #90 received at 478524@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox, reply):

From: Roger Leigh <rleigh@whinlatter.ukfsn.org>

To: Joe Nahmias <jello@debian.org>

Cc: 478524@bugs.debian.org, 479556@bugs.debian.org, Riku Voipio <riku.voipio@iki.fi>, 474413@bugs.debian.org

Subject: Re: [Buildd-tools-devel] Bug#478524: Problem with autobuild of libtommath/0.39-2

Date: Wed, 07 May 2008 18:18:12 +0100

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

Joe Nahmias <jello@debian.org> writes:

> Hi Roger,
>
> On Tue, May 06, 2008 at 09:36:37PM +0100, Roger Leigh wrote:
>> Joe Nahmias <jello@debian.org> writes:
> [snip]
>> I discussed this yesterday on #debian-devel.  The main issues are
>
>> - most packages do not yet contain a build-arch|build-indep target,
>>   and policy currently makes this optional.  Calling "debian/rules
>>   binary-arch" will break a lot of packages.
>
> Um, my reading of policy says that BINARY-arch is required and should
> depend on the appropriate targets to build the package as necessary.

That's just a mistake on my part; that should have read "build-arch".

> So, I don't see why dpkg-buildpackage can't simply run:
>
> ...
>   debian/rules clean
>   debian/rules binary-arch
> ...
>
> All this would do is potentially expose bugs in packages that are not
> currently policy-compliant in terms of the target dependancies, of which
> I doubt there are very many due to dh_make templates and the like.

Whatever the case is, concrete numbers are needed, rather than
hypothesising.  The extent of breakage needs to be known before
implementing any changes.


Regards,
Roger

-- 
  .''`.  Roger Leigh
 : :' :  Debian GNU/Linux             http://people.debian.org/~rleigh/
 `. `'   Printing on GNU/Linux?       http://gutenprint.sourceforge.net/
   `-    GPG Public Key: 0x25BFB848   Please GPG sign your mail.

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

Message #95 received at 478524@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox, reply):

From: Roger Leigh <rleigh@whinlatter.ukfsn.org>

To: Joe Nahmias <jello@debian.org>

Cc: 478524@bugs.debian.org, Riku Voipio <riku.voipio@iki.fi>, 479556@bugs.debian.org, 474413@bugs.debian.org

Subject: Re: [Buildd-tools-devel] Bug#478524: Problem with autobuild of libtommath/0.39-2

Date: Wed, 07 May 2008 18:31:11 +0100

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

Joe Nahmias <jello@debian.org> writes:

> Hi Riku,
>
> On Wed, May 07, 2008 at 02:48:53PM +0300, Riku Voipio wrote:
>> On Tue, May 06, 2008 at 07:41:10PM +0000, Joe Nahmias wrote:
>> > On Mon, May 05, 2008 at 11:57:55PM +0300, Riku Voipio wrote:
>> > > Lets not complicate this matter with the age-long build/build-arch
>> > > discussion. libtommath needs add the build-dependencies enough to
>> > > to get through debian/rules build for the time being.
>> 
>> > Maybe I'm missing something [...]
>> 
>> Yes. You missed the part where I requested not complicate the issue.
>> dpkg-buildpackage/sbuild will be made better eventually. Will happen
>> faster if someone actually shows a patch that uses build-arch and
>> demonstrates that it will break building of <1% packages. Currently
>> it seems people prefer to just talk about it and hypothise about problems
>> that could potentially materialize in some parallax universe rather than
>> provide patches and testresults of full archive rebuilds.
>
> I agree, it's not complicated -- fix your buildd software (or
> environment, if you pefer) to install B-D-I if you're going to use the
> build target.  It's not a bug in my package if you use faulty
> software/environment in your buildd, that doesn't follow policy's
> requirements for building debian packages, and then the build fails
> because you didn't follow the instructions.

I don't think anyone is claiming your package is buggy.  The problem
is clearly in dpkg-buildpackage.  However, until dpkg-buildpackage is
fixed, it is probably best to add B-D-I to B-D in order to work around
it.


Regards,
Roger

-- 
  .''`.  Roger Leigh
 : :' :  Debian GNU/Linux             http://people.debian.org/~rleigh/
 `. `'   Printing on GNU/Linux?       http://gutenprint.sourceforge.net/
   `-    GPG Public Key: 0x25BFB848   Please GPG sign your mail.

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

Message #102 received at 478524@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox, reply):

From: Jonathan Nieder <jrnieder@gmail.com>

To: Joe Nahmias <jello@debian.org>

Cc: 478524@bugs.debian.org

Subject: Re: debian/rules build target requires installing B-D-I

Date: Sun, 6 May 2012 18:16:38 -0500

block 478524 by 398625
block 478524 by 613015
quit

Hi,

Joe Nahmias wrote:

> And I would further argue that it's a bug for sbuild to use
> dpkg-buildpackage (as it's currently implemented, using the build
> target) without installing B-D-I.

Alternatively, this could probably be mostly fixed by adding a
Depends by sbuild on dpkg-dev (>= 1.16.2).

Thanks,
Jonathan

Message #111 received at 478524@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox, reply):

From: Johannes Schauer <josch@debian.org>

To: 478524@bugs.debian.org

Cc: jrnieder@gmail.com, rleigh@whinlatter.ukfsn.org, jello@debian.org

Subject: Re: debian/rules build target requires installing B-D-I

Date: Thu, 24 Dec 2015 01:06:06 +0100

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

Control: tag -1 + moreinfo

Hi,

On Sun, 6 May 2012 18:16:38 -0500 Jonathan Nieder <jrnieder@gmail.com> wrote:
> Joe Nahmias wrote:
> > And I would further argue that it's a bug for sbuild to use
> > dpkg-buildpackage (as it's currently implemented, using the build target)
> > without installing B-D-I.
> 
> Alternatively, this could probably be mostly fixed by adding a Depends by
> sbuild on dpkg-dev (>= 1.16.2).

could somebody explain to me how sbuild is responsible for this bug?

Sbuild is told how to call dpkg-buildpackage and will install Build-Depends and
Build-Depends-Indep accordingly. Where is the bug?

Thanks!

cheers, josch

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

Send a report that this bug log contains spam.