Debian Bug report logs - #679778
unblock: spandsp/0.0.6~pre20-2

Package: release.debian.org; Maintainer for release.debian.org is Debian Release Team <debian-release@lists.debian.org>;

Reported by: Tzafrir Cohen <tzafrir@debian.org>

Date: Sun, 1 Jul 2012 13:51:07 UTC

Severity: normal

Tags: moreinfo

Done: "Adam D. Barratt" <adam@adam-barratt.org.uk>

Bug is archived. No further changes may be made.

Toggle useless messages

View this report as an mbox folder, status mbox, maintainer mbox


Report forwarded to debian-bugs-dist@lists.debian.org, Debian Release Team <debian-release@lists.debian.org>:
Bug#679778; Package release.debian.org. (Sun, 01 Jul 2012 13:51:11 GMT) Full text and rfc822 format available.

Acknowledgement sent to Tzafrir Cohen <tzafrir@debian.org>:
New Bug report received and forwarded. Copy sent to Debian Release Team <debian-release@lists.debian.org>. (Sun, 01 Jul 2012 13:51:11 GMT) Full text and rfc822 format available.

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

From: Tzafrir Cohen <tzafrir@debian.org>
To: Debian Bug Tracking System <submit@bugs.debian.org>
Subject: unblock: spandsp/0.0.6~pre20-2
Date: Sun, 01 Jul 2012 16:48:36 +0300
Package: release.debian.org
Severity: normal
User: release.debian.org@packages.debian.org
Usertags: unblock

Please unblock package spandsp

See http://bugs.debian.org/679736 . The test suite may fail when building
in parallel. This patch avoids building the test suite in parallel.

unblock spandsp/0.0.6~pre20-2

-- System Information:
Debian Release: wheezy/sid
  APT prefers testing
  APT policy: (500, 'testing'), (1, 'experimental')
Architecture: amd64 (x86_64)

Kernel: Linux 3.2.0-2-amd64 (SMP w/2 CPU cores)
Locale: LANG=he_IL.UTF-8, LC_CTYPE=he_IL.UTF-8 (charmap=UTF-8)
Shell: /bin/sh linked to /bin/dash




Information forwarded to debian-bugs-dist@lists.debian.org, Debian Release Team <debian-release@lists.debian.org>:
Bug#679778; Package release.debian.org. (Sun, 01 Jul 2012 15:42:03 GMT) Full text and rfc822 format available.

Acknowledgement sent to "Adam D. Barratt" <adam@adam-barratt.org.uk>:
Extra info received and forwarded to list. Copy sent to Debian Release Team <debian-release@lists.debian.org>. (Sun, 01 Jul 2012 15:42:03 GMT) Full text and rfc822 format available.

Message #10 received at 679778@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox):

From: "Adam D. Barratt" <adam@adam-barratt.org.uk>
To: Tzafrir Cohen <tzafrir@debian.org>, 679778@bugs.debian.org
Subject: Re: Bug#679778: unblock: spandsp/0.0.6~pre20-2
Date: Sun, 01 Jul 2012 16:37:44 +0100
On Sun, 2012-07-01 at 16:48 +0300, Tzafrir Cohen wrote:
> Please unblock package spandsp
> 
> See http://bugs.debian.org/679736 . The test suite may fail when building
> in parallel. This patch avoids building the test suite in parallel.

So far as I can tell, that bug does not affect wheezy, as it was
introduced in a version of the package which has only ever been in
unstable; is that correct?

On that basis, the changes from both -1 and -2 are relevant to the
unblock.  While the changes between the current testing package and -1
aren't huge, the changelog isn't really very helpful in terms of helping
me decide whether they're appropriate for an unblock as it just says
"new upstream version".

Would it be possible to expand (briefly should be fine) on what the
changes in the new upstream version are?

Regards,

Adam





Information forwarded to debian-bugs-dist@lists.debian.org, Debian Release Team <debian-release@lists.debian.org>:
Bug#679778; Package release.debian.org. (Mon, 02 Jul 2012 06:27:03 GMT) Full text and rfc822 format available.

Acknowledgement sent to Tzafrir Cohen <tzafrir@cohens.org.il>:
Extra info received and forwarded to list. Copy sent to Debian Release Team <debian-release@lists.debian.org>. (Mon, 02 Jul 2012 06:27:03 GMT) Full text and rfc822 format available.

Message #15 received at 679778@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox):

From: Tzafrir Cohen <tzafrir@cohens.org.il>
To: 679778@bugs.debian.org, "Adam D. Barratt" <adam@adam-barratt.org.uk>
Subject: Re: Bug#679778: unblock: spandsp/0.0.6~pre20-2
Date: Mon, 2 Jul 2012 06:22:52 +0000
On Sun, Jul 01, 2012 at 04:37:44PM +0100, Adam D. Barratt wrote:
> On Sun, 2012-07-01 at 16:48 +0300, Tzafrir Cohen wrote:
> > Please unblock package spandsp
> > 
> > See http://bugs.debian.org/679736 . The test suite may fail when building
> > in parallel. This patch avoids building the test suite in parallel.

Updated the issue and uploaded 0.0.6~pre20-3 .

> 
> So far as I can tell, that bug does not affect wheezy, as it was
> introduced in a version of the package which has only ever been in
> unstable; is that correct?

The bug was introduced by the fact that as of 0.0.6pre20 I enabled the
test suite at build time. I suppose that if I enabled the test suite on
pre18 (in Wheezy now) it would have the same effect. Unfortunately it
took me a while to notice the issue after uploading the package to
Unstable.

> 
> On that basis, the changes from both -1 and -2 are relevant to the
> unblock.  While the changes between the current testing package and -1
> aren't huge, the changelog isn't really very helpful in terms of helping
> me decide whether they're appropriate for an unblock as it just says
> "new upstream version".
> 
> Would it be possible to expand (briefly should be fine) on what the
> changes in the new upstream version are?

As of now there are two separate issues:

1. The test suite was not designed to be built in parallel:
   https://buildd.debian.org/status/logs.php?pkg=spandsp&ver=0.0.6~pre20-1
   All failiures are due to a test file not having a proper input, as
   it was deleted or being regenerated by another program running the same
   thing.

Fix for that: .NOTPARALLEL in tests/Makefile . In -2 it was not done
properly and hence didn't really work. Works now.

2. Something that at first glance as a mips toolchain issue:
   https://buildd.debian.org/status/logs.php?pkg=spandsp&arch=mips
   Note that the builds for 0.0.6~pre20-2 and 0.0.6~pre20-3 failed much
   earlier than the one for 0.0.6~pre20-1 (which was also built on a
   different buildd).

Looking into that one.

-- 
Tzafrir Cohen         | tzafrir@jabber.org | VIM is
http://tzafrir.org.il |                    | a Mutt's
tzafrir@cohens.org.il |                    |  best
tzafrir@debian.org    |                    | friend




Information forwarded to debian-bugs-dist@lists.debian.org, Debian Release Team <debian-release@lists.debian.org>:
Bug#679778; Package release.debian.org. (Mon, 02 Jul 2012 07:15:09 GMT) Full text and rfc822 format available.

Acknowledgement sent to "Adam D. Barratt" <adam@adam-barratt.org.uk>:
Extra info received and forwarded to list. Copy sent to Debian Release Team <debian-release@lists.debian.org>. (Mon, 02 Jul 2012 07:15:09 GMT) Full text and rfc822 format available.

Message #20 received at 679778@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox):

From: "Adam D. Barratt" <adam@adam-barratt.org.uk>
To: Tzafrir Cohen <tzafrir@cohens.org.il>
Cc: <679778@bugs.debian.org>
Subject: Re: Bug#679778: unblock: spandsp/0.0.6~pre20-2
Date: Mon, 02 Jul 2012 08:12:01 +0100
On 02.07.2012 07:22, Tzafrir Cohen wrote:
> On Sun, Jul 01, 2012 at 04:37:44PM +0100, Adam D. Barratt wrote:
>> On Sun, 2012-07-01 at 16:48 +0300, Tzafrir Cohen wrote:
>> > Please unblock package spandsp
[...]
>> On that basis, the changes from both -1 and -2 are relevant to the
>> unblock.  While the changes between the current testing package and 
>> -1
>> aren't huge, the changelog isn't really very helpful in terms of 
>> helping
>> me decide whether they're appropriate for an unblock as it just says
>> "new upstream version".
>>
>> Would it be possible to expand (briefly should be fine) on what the
>> changes in the new upstream version are?
>
> As of now there are two separate issues:

Apologies if my question wasn't clear.  I was asking for more detail on 
why 0.0.6~pre20 is a better candidate for release than the version 
that's currently in wheezy, other than by sheer virtue of being "newer".

Regards,

Adam




Information forwarded to debian-bugs-dist@lists.debian.org, Debian Release Team <debian-release@lists.debian.org>:
Bug#679778; Package release.debian.org. (Mon, 02 Jul 2012 22:45:07 GMT) Full text and rfc822 format available.

Acknowledgement sent to Tzafrir Cohen <tzafrir@cohens.org.il>:
Extra info received and forwarded to list. Copy sent to Debian Release Team <debian-release@lists.debian.org>. (Mon, 02 Jul 2012 22:45:07 GMT) Full text and rfc822 format available.

Message #25 received at 679778@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox):

From: Tzafrir Cohen <tzafrir@cohens.org.il>
To: "Adam D. Barratt" <adam@adam-barratt.org.uk>
Cc: Tzafrir Cohen <tzafrir@cohens.org.il>, 679778@bugs.debian.org
Subject: Re: Bug#679778: unblock: spandsp/0.0.6~pre20-2
Date: Mon, 2 Jul 2012 22:39:16 +0000
On Mon, Jul 02, 2012 at 08:12:01AM +0100, Adam D. Barratt wrote:
> On 02.07.2012 07:22, Tzafrir Cohen wrote:
>> On Sun, Jul 01, 2012 at 04:37:44PM +0100, Adam D. Barratt wrote:
>>> On Sun, 2012-07-01 at 16:48 +0300, Tzafrir Cohen wrote:
>>> > Please unblock package spandsp
> [...]
>>> On that basis, the changes from both -1 and -2 are relevant to the
>>> unblock.  While the changes between the current testing package and  
>>> -1
>>> aren't huge, the changelog isn't really very helpful in terms of  
>>> helping
>>> me decide whether they're appropriate for an unblock as it just says
>>> "new upstream version".
>>>
>>> Would it be possible to expand (briefly should be fine) on what the
>>> changes in the new upstream version are?
>>
>> As of now there are two separate issues:
>
> Apologies if my question wasn't clear.  I was asking for more detail on  
> why 0.0.6~pre20 is a better candidate for release than the version  
> that's currently in wheezy, other than by sheer virtue of being "newer".

There's no real changelog. However the difference between pre18 and
pre20 is not big.

pre19: https://gitorious.org/spandsp/spandsp/commit/926c6eec0a2955dffccea3992232d0a064f4a5f6
A bugfix commit. IIRC the fix in t4_rx.c was discovered by faxes that
managed to crash Asterisk.


pre20: https://gitorious.org/spandsp/spandsp/commit/83f249c1a0172d3246a2ffb69fb534f725bdbca3
Again: bugfixes. Sadly I'm not sure what for, exactly (that git tree is
something I produce from tarballs and I have no better changelos,
sadly).


-- 
Tzafrir Cohen         | tzafrir@jabber.org | VIM is
http://tzafrir.org.il |                    | a Mutt's
tzafrir@cohens.org.il |                    |  best
tzafrir@debian.org    |                    | friend




Information forwarded to debian-bugs-dist@lists.debian.org, Debian Release Team <debian-release@lists.debian.org>:
Bug#679778; Package release.debian.org. (Tue, 03 Jul 2012 19:36:04 GMT) Full text and rfc822 format available.

Acknowledgement sent to "Adam D. Barratt" <adam@adam-barratt.org.uk>:
Extra info received and forwarded to list. Copy sent to Debian Release Team <debian-release@lists.debian.org>. (Tue, 03 Jul 2012 19:36:04 GMT) Full text and rfc822 format available.

Message #30 received at 679778@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox):

From: "Adam D. Barratt" <adam@adam-barratt.org.uk>
To: Tzafrir Cohen <tzafrir@cohens.org.il>
Cc: 679778@bugs.debian.org
Subject: Re: Bug#679778: unblock: spandsp/0.0.6~pre20-2
Date: Tue, 03 Jul 2012 20:31:48 +0100
On Mon, 2012-07-02 at 22:39 +0000, Tzafrir Cohen wrote:
> There's no real changelog. However the difference between pre18 and
> pre20 is not big.
>
> pre19: https://gitorious.org/spandsp/spandsp/commit/926c6eec0a2955dffccea3992232d0a064f4a5f6
> A bugfix commit. IIRC the fix in t4_rx.c was discovered by faxes that
> managed to crash Asterisk.
> 
> 
> pre20: https://gitorious.org/spandsp/spandsp/commit/83f249c1a0172d3246a2ffb69fb534f725bdbca3
> Again: bugfixes. Sadly I'm not sure what for, exactly

Hmmm.  I'm prepared to go with the change in pre19 being suitable, and
give the benefit of the doubt to the pre20 changes and hope they don't
turn out to be a pain.  There are a couple of packaging changes that
don't appear to be mentioned in the changelog though:

debian/control:
-Conflicts: asterisk-app-dtmftotext (<= 0.0.20060218-4)

debian/rules:
 %:
-       dh $@ --with-autotools-dev --parallel
+       dh $@ --parallel


> (that git tree is
> something I produce from tarballs and I have no better changelos,
> sadly).

Yeah, upstream's homepage suggests they're of the "throw tarballs over
the wall" persuasion.  That's quite unhelpful. :-(

Regards,

Adam





Added tag(s) moreinfo. Request was from Julien Cristau <jcristau@debian.org> to control@bugs.debian.org. (Sat, 21 Jul 2012 10:21:04 GMT) Full text and rfc822 format available.

Information forwarded to debian-bugs-dist@lists.debian.org, Debian Release Team <debian-release@lists.debian.org>:
Bug#679778; Package release.debian.org. (Thu, 26 Jul 2012 08:54:05 GMT) Full text and rfc822 format available.

Acknowledgement sent to Tzafrir Cohen <tzafrir@cohens.org.il>:
Extra info received and forwarded to list. Copy sent to Debian Release Team <debian-release@lists.debian.org>. (Thu, 26 Jul 2012 08:54:05 GMT) Full text and rfc822 format available.

Message #37 received at 679778@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox):

From: Tzafrir Cohen <tzafrir@cohens.org.il>
To: "Adam D. Barratt" <adam@adam-barratt.org.uk>
Cc: Tzafrir Cohen <tzafrir@cohens.org.il>, 679778@bugs.debian.org
Subject: Re: Bug#679778: unblock: spandsp/0.0.6~pre20-2
Date: Thu, 26 Jul 2012 08:45:58 +0000
Hi

(I was sure this was sent before. Sorry for the delay)

On Tue, Jul 03, 2012 at 08:31:48PM +0100, Adam D. Barratt wrote:
> On Mon, 2012-07-02 at 22:39 +0000, Tzafrir Cohen wrote:
> > There's no real changelog. However the difference between pre18 and
> > pre20 is not big.
> >
> > pre19: https://gitorious.org/spandsp/spandsp/commit/926c6eec0a2955dffccea3992232d0a064f4a5f6
> > A bugfix commit. IIRC the fix in t4_rx.c was discovered by faxes that
> > managed to crash Asterisk.
> > 
> > 
> > pre20: https://gitorious.org/spandsp/spandsp/commit/83f249c1a0172d3246a2ffb69fb534f725bdbca3
> > Again: bugfixes. Sadly I'm not sure what for, exactly
> 
> Hmmm.  I'm prepared to go with the change in pre19 being suitable, and
> give the benefit of the doubt to the pre20 changes and hope they don't
> turn out to be a pain.  There are a couple of packaging changes that
> don't appear to be mentioned in the changelog though:
> 
> debian/control:
> -Conflicts: asterisk-app-dtmftotext (<= 0.0.20060218-4)

That package is long gone (since Etch). It also depended on libspandsp1
which is gone (assuming you don't use m68k). So there's no longer a need
for the explicit Conflicts.

> 
> debian/rules:
>  %:
> -       dh $@ --with-autotools-dev --parallel
> +       dh $@ --parallel

I guess it should have been '--with autotools-dev'. But as-is it seems a
no-op. So I preffered to just remove it rather than change packaging
further.

-- 
Tzafrir Cohen         | tzafrir@jabber.org | VIM is
http://tzafrir.org.il |                    | a Mutt's
tzafrir@cohens.org.il |                    |  best
tzafrir@debian.org    |                    | friend



Reply sent to "Adam D. Barratt" <adam@adam-barratt.org.uk>:
You have taken responsibility. (Thu, 26 Jul 2012 19:18:06 GMT) Full text and rfc822 format available.

Notification sent to Tzafrir Cohen <tzafrir@debian.org>:
Bug acknowledged by developer. (Thu, 26 Jul 2012 19:18:06 GMT) Full text and rfc822 format available.

Message #42 received at 679778-done@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox):

From: "Adam D. Barratt" <adam@adam-barratt.org.uk>
To: Tzafrir Cohen <tzafrir@cohens.org.il>, 679778-done@bugs.debian.org
Subject: Re: Bug#679778: unblock: spandsp/0.0.6~pre20-2
Date: Thu, 26 Jul 2012 20:13:16 +0100
On Thu, 2012-07-26 at 08:45 +0000, Tzafrir Cohen wrote:
> On Tue, Jul 03, 2012 at 08:31:48PM +0100, Adam D. Barratt wrote:
> > Hmmm.  I'm prepared to go with the change in pre19 being suitable, and
> > give the benefit of the doubt to the pre20 changes and hope they don't
> > turn out to be a pain.  There are a couple of packaging changes that
> > don't appear to be mentioned in the changelog though:
> > 
> > debian/control:
> > -Conflicts: asterisk-app-dtmftotext (<= 0.0.20060218-4)
> 
> That package is long gone (since Etch). It also depended on libspandsp1
> which is gone (assuming you don't use m68k). So there's no longer a need
> for the explicit Conflicts.

Okay.

> > debian/rules:
> >  %:
> > -       dh $@ --with-autotools-dev --parallel
> > +       dh $@ --parallel
> 
> I guess it should have been '--with autotools-dev'. But as-is it seems a
> no-op. So I preffered to just remove it rather than change packaging
> further.

It should indeed have been "--with autotools-dev".  Normally I'd have
suggested fixing it but, given that it's never worked, the explicit drop
works okay too.

It would have been handy if both of those had been changelogged
though. :-)

Unblocked; thanks.

Regards,

Adam




Bug archived. Request was from Debbugs Internal Request <owner@bugs.debian.org> to internal_control@bugs.debian.org. (Fri, 24 Aug 2012 07:28:36 GMT) Full text and rfc822 format available.

Send a report that this bug log contains spam.


Debian bug tracking system administrator <owner@bugs.debian.org>. Last modified: Sat Apr 19 02:31:25 2014; Machine Name: buxtehude.debian.org

Debian Bug tracking system
Copyright (C) 1999 Darren O. Benham, 1997,2003 nCipher Corporation Ltd, 1994-97 Ian Jackson.