Debian Bug report logs - #830997
release.debian.org: Permission to consider dpkg-buildpackage -A bugs as RC

Toggle useless messages

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

From: Santiago Vila <sanvila@unex.es>

To: Debian BTS <submit@bugs.debian.org>

Subject: release.debian.org: Permission to consider dpkg-buildpackage -A bugs as RC

Date: Wed, 13 Jul 2016 18:21:44 +0200 (CEST)

Package: release.debian.org
Severity: wishlist

Dear Release Managers:

Back in November I started to check and report each and every source
package for which "dpkg-buildpackage -A" fails.

Approximately 293 bugs so far have been filed about this issue:

https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/pkgreport.cgi?tag=binary-indep;users=sanvila@debian.org

Most of them (182) are already fixed and a bunch of the remaining ones
have patches available.


With this report I'd like to ask for permission to consider this as a
release goal for stretch. This way the bugs would be raised to serious
and they would be treated like any other FTBFS bug.

Making this a release goal would mean that each and every package in
stretch (once it's stable) would be suitable to be uploaded in
source-only form. I think this feature would be particularly
interesting for the security team.


If you agree on making this a release goal, I can think of two ways of
doing this:

1) The wording in this page could be modified:

https://release.debian.org/stretch/rc_policy.txt

Currently it says:

  Packages must autobuild without failure on all architectures on
  which they are supported.

Maybe adding "This requirement includes the traditional
architecture-specific autobuilders and also the "Arch: all" autobuilder".
or something alike.

2) Or maybe we could just state that "Packages must autobuild" implicitly
refers to all available autobuilders, but in such case an official
statement from you clarifying how the paragraph should be interpreted
would help.


In case this release goal is accepted, I'm open for suggestions about
how to proceed (for example, if a last warning mail should be sent to
the bug reports before raising severities, waiting for a week or two,
etc. things like that).

Thanks.

Message #10 received at 830997@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox, reply):

From: Emilio Pozuelo Monfort <pochu@debian.org>

To: Santiago Vila <sanvila@unex.es>, 830997@bugs.debian.org

Subject: Re: Bug#830997: release.debian.org: Permission to consider dpkg-buildpackage -A bugs as RC

Date: Wed, 13 Jul 2016 18:32:08 +0200

Hi Santiago,

On 13/07/16 18:21, Santiago Vila wrote:
> Package: release.debian.org
> Severity: wishlist
> 
> Dear Release Managers:
> 
> Back in November I started to check and report each and every source
> package for which "dpkg-buildpackage -A" fails.
> 
> Approximately 293 bugs so far have been filed about this issue:
> 
> https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/pkgreport.cgi?tag=binary-indep;users=sanvila@debian.org
> 
> Most of them (182) are already fixed and a bunch of the remaining ones
> have patches available.
> 
> 
> With this report I'd like to ask for permission to consider this as a
> release goal for stretch. This way the bugs would be raised to serious
> and they would be treated like any other FTBFS bug.
> 
> Making this a release goal would mean that each and every package in
> stretch (once it's stable) would be suitable to be uploaded in
> source-only form. I think this feature would be particularly
> interesting for the security team.

Thanks for working on this. I'm all for doing this. But before introducing ~100
RC bugs, can you give me the intersection of the remaining affected packages and
the key packages?

https://udd.debian.org/cgi-bin/key_packages.cgi

See the "Final list of 3345 key source packages"

Cheers,
Emilio

Message #15 received at 830997@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox, reply):

From: Santiago Vila <sanvila@unex.es>

To: Emilio Pozuelo Monfort <pochu@debian.org>

Cc: 830997@bugs.debian.org

Subject: Re: Bug#830997: release.debian.org: Permission to consider dpkg-buildpackage -A bugs as RC

Date: Wed, 13 Jul 2016 18:58:40 +0200 (CEST)

On Wed, 13 Jul 2016, Emilio Pozuelo Monfort wrote:

> Thanks for working on this. I'm all for doing this. But before introducing ~100
> RC bugs, can you give me the intersection of the remaining affected packages and
> the key packages?
> 
> https://udd.debian.org/cgi-bin/key_packages.cgi
> 
> See the "Final list of 3345 key source packages"

Sure. There are 24 key packages affected:

accountsservice
acpica-unix
cmocka
cython
db5.3
ecj
eclipse
fftw3
gtkglext
guile-2.0
heimdal
libconfig
libmtp
libnative-platform-java
libtool
libwps
llvm-toolchain-3.8
net-snmp
ocaml
python-scipy
sane-backends
sofia-sip
taglib
tiff

(From those 24, 8 of them have a patch, 15 do not, and 1 is pending upload).

Thanks.

Message #20 received at 830997@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox, reply):

From: Emilio Pozuelo Monfort <pochu@debian.org>

To: Santiago Vila <sanvila@unex.es>

Cc: 830997@bugs.debian.org

Subject: Re: Bug#830997: release.debian.org: Permission to consider dpkg-buildpackage -A bugs as RC

Date: Wed, 13 Jul 2016 20:45:19 +0200

Control: tags -1 confirmed pending

On 13/07/16 18:58, Santiago Vila wrote:
> On Wed, 13 Jul 2016, Emilio Pozuelo Monfort wrote:
> 
>> Thanks for working on this. I'm all for doing this. But before introducing ~100
>> RC bugs, can you give me the intersection of the remaining affected packages and
>> the key packages?
>>
>> https://udd.debian.org/cgi-bin/key_packages.cgi
>>
>> See the "Final list of 3345 key source packages"
> 
> Sure. There are 24 key packages affected:
> 
> accountsservice
> acpica-unix
> cmocka
> cython
> db5.3
> ecj
> eclipse
> fftw3
> gtkglext
> guile-2.0
> heimdal
> libconfig
> libmtp
> libnative-platform-java
> libtool
> libwps
> llvm-toolchain-3.8
> net-snmp
> ocaml
> python-scipy
> sane-backends
> sofia-sip
> taglib
> tiff
> 
> (From those 24, 8 of them have a patch, 15 do not, and 1 is pending upload).

Great. We can handle that for Stretch. You can send a ping to the bug reports
saying that these are going to be RC for Stretch and that you will bump them
after a week, and then do that. (And after that, file any new bugs at "serious"
severity, obviously.)

I'll take care of updating the freeze policy and sending an announcement.

Cheers,
Emilio

Message #27 received at 830997@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox, reply):

From: Santiago Vila <sanvila@unex.es>

To: Emilio Pozuelo Monfort <pochu@debian.org>

Cc: 830997@bugs.debian.org

Subject: Re: Bug#830997: release.debian.org: Permission to consider dpkg-buildpackage -A bugs as RC

Date: Fri, 15 Jul 2016 00:23:28 +0200 (CEST)

On Wed, 13 Jul 2016, Emilio Pozuelo Monfort wrote:

> Great. We can handle that for Stretch. You can send a ping to the bug reports
> saying that these are going to be RC for Stretch and that you will bump them
> after a week, and then do that.

Hi. The pings have been sent. Bugs of type "pending upload" and "patch available"
yesterday, bugs of type "unclassified" today. Will probably bump severities
during the weeking of next week.

Thanks a lot.

Message #32 received at 830997@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox, reply):

From: "Manuel A. Fernandez Montecelo" <manuel.montezelo@gmail.com>

To: Santiago Vila <sanvila@unex.es>, 830997@bugs.debian.org

Subject: Re: Bug#830997: release.debian.org: Permission to consider dpkg-buildpackage -A bugs as RC

Date: Sun, 17 Jul 2016 22:31:00 +0100

Hi,

2016-07-13 17:21 Santiago Vila:
>[...]
>
>Back in November I started to check and report each and every source
>package for which "dpkg-buildpackage -A" fails.
>[...]
>
>Making this a release goal would mean that each and every package in
>stretch (once it's stable) would be suitable to be uploaded in
>source-only form. I think this feature would be particularly
>interesting for the security team.

Just wanted to thank you for this effort, very nice work.

And even if I don't have any authority on the matter, to say that I
believe that it's a worthwhile release goal.


Cheers.
-- 
Manuel A. Fernandez Montecelo <manuel.montezelo@gmail.com>

Message #37 received at 830997@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox, reply):

From: Lucas Nussbaum <lucas@debian.org>

To: Santiago Vila <sanvila@unex.es>, 830997@bugs.debian.org

Cc: Emilio Pozuelo Monfort <pochu@debian.org>

Subject: Re: Bug#830997: release.debian.org: Permission to consider dpkg-buildpackage -A bugs as RC

Date: Wed, 20 Jul 2016 21:47:52 +0200

On 15/07/16 at 00:23 +0200, Santiago Vila wrote:
> On Wed, 13 Jul 2016, Emilio Pozuelo Monfort wrote:
> 
> > Great. We can handle that for Stretch. You can send a ping to the bug reports
> > saying that these are going to be RC for Stretch and that you will bump them
> > after a week, and then do that.
> 
> Hi. The pings have been sent. Bugs of type "pending upload" and "patch available"
> yesterday, bugs of type "unclassified" today. Will probably bump severities
> during the weeking of next week.
> 
> Thanks a lot.

Hi,

I did some work to verify Santiago's list of affected packages, and
identified more affected packages. The additional bugs I filed are at:
https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/pkgreport.cgi?tag=qa-indep;users=debian-qa@lists.debian.org

(I didn't want to directly tag them using Santiago's tag in case some
manual screening was wanted.)

I only filed them as severity: important. Feel free to bump the severity
to serious when you see fit. I already mentioned in the bug reports that
severity will be set to serious at some point, and pointed to this bug.

Also, I ran into #805228 which causes build failures for many Java
packages (which Santiago already identified). That bug should probably
be set serious at the same time as the initial set. Once that bug is
fixed, the affected Java packages should be build-tested again. (list
available in #805228)

Lucas

Message #42 received at 830997@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox, reply):

From: Santiago Vila <sanvila@unex.es>

To: Lucas Nussbaum <lucas@debian.org>

Cc: 830997@bugs.debian.org, Emilio Pozuelo Monfort <pochu@debian.org>

Subject: Re: Bug#830997: release.debian.org: Permission to consider dpkg-buildpackage -A bugs as RC

Date: Thu, 21 Jul 2016 02:21:02 +0200

On Wed, Jul 20, 2016 at 09:47:52PM +0200, Lucas Nussbaum wrote:
> On 15/07/16 at 00:23 +0200, Santiago Vila wrote:
> 
> I did some work to verify Santiago's list of affected packages, and
> identified more affected packages. The additional bugs I filed are at:
> https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/pkgreport.cgi?tag=qa-indep;users=debian-qa@lists.debian.org
> 
> (I didn't want to directly tag them using Santiago's tag in case some
> manual screening was wanted.)
> 
> I only filed them as severity: important. Feel free to bump the severity
> to serious when you see fit. I already mentioned in the bug reports that
> severity will be set to serious at some point, and pointed to this bug.

Thanks a lot for double-checking.


Some of the new bugs are like this:

  make: *** No rule to make target 'build-indep'. Stop.

Targets build-arch and build-indep are mandatory, and this was already
decided by dpkg author. This is not new, so I would raise those bugs
to serious now.

Also: Could you tag those bugs differently so that we can differentiate
them from the remaining ones? We certainly don't want the Release Managers
to think we want to add 61 more RC bugs for stretch when they are
really less than that.


I also see many bugs like this:

  binary build with no binary artifacts found; cannot distribute

They happen on packages generating only "Arch: all" packages
(which is why I didn't check them).

This fact, however, makes most (all?) of those bugs trivial to fix, as
it usually happens that binary-arch and binary-indep are just swapped.

Two random examples:

https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=831911
https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=831971


I'll take a closer look at the new bugs you reported in the following
days.

Thanks.

Message #47 received at 830997@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox, reply):

From: Lucas Nussbaum <lucas@debian.org>

To: Santiago Vila <sanvila@unex.es>

Cc: 830997@bugs.debian.org, Emilio Pozuelo Monfort <pochu@debian.org>

Subject: Re: Bug#830997: release.debian.org: Permission to consider dpkg-buildpackage -A bugs as RC

Date: Thu, 21 Jul 2016 09:40:11 +0200

On 21/07/16 at 02:21 +0200, Santiago Vila wrote:
> On Wed, Jul 20, 2016 at 09:47:52PM +0200, Lucas Nussbaum wrote:
> > On 15/07/16 at 00:23 +0200, Santiago Vila wrote:
> > 
> > I did some work to verify Santiago's list of affected packages, and
> > identified more affected packages. The additional bugs I filed are at:
> > https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/pkgreport.cgi?tag=qa-indep;users=debian-qa@lists.debian.org
> > 
> > (I didn't want to directly tag them using Santiago's tag in case some
> > manual screening was wanted.)
> > 
> > I only filed them as severity: important. Feel free to bump the severity
> > to serious when you see fit. I already mentioned in the bug reports that
> > severity will be set to serious at some point, and pointed to this bug.
> 
> Thanks a lot for double-checking.
> 
> 
> Some of the new bugs are like this:
> 
>   make: *** No rule to make target 'build-indep'. Stop.
> 
> Targets build-arch and build-indep are mandatory, and this was already
> decided by dpkg author. This is not new, so I would raise those bugs
> to serious now.

Hi,

Those bugs are:
 • #831918 [i|  |  ] [src:bglibs] bglibs: FTBFS with dpkg-buildpackage -A: make: *** No rule to make target 'build-indep'. Stop.
 • #831921 [i|  |  ] [src:daemontools] daemontools: FTBFS with dpkg-buildpackage -A: make: *** No rule to make target 'build-indep'. Stop.
 • #831933 [i|  |  ] [src:mono] mono: FTBFS with dpkg-buildpackage -A: make: *** No rule to make target 'build-indep'. Stop.
 • #831944 [i|  |  ] [src:pyorbit] pyorbit: FTBFS with dpkg-buildpackage -A: make: *** No rule to make target 'build-indep'. Stop.
 • #831945 [i|  |  ] [src:pygtk] pygtk: FTBFS with dpkg-buildpackage -A: make: *** No rule to make target 'build-indep'. Stop.
 • #831950 [i|  |  ] [src:gnome-python] gnome-python: FTBFS with dpkg-buildpackage -A: make: *** No rule to make target 'build-indep'. Stop.
 • #831960 [i|  |  ] [src:pygobject-2] pygobject-2: FTBFS with dpkg-buildpackage -A: make: *** No rule to make target 'build-indep'. Stop.
 • #831961 [i|  |  ] [src:proftpd-dfsg] proftpd-dfsg: FTBFS with dpkg-buildpackage -A: make: *** No rule to make target 'build-indep'. Stop.
 • #831963 [i|  |  ] [src:netqmail] netqmail: FTBFS with dpkg-buildpackage -A: make: *** No rule to make target 'build-indep'. Stop.

I've just raised their severity to serious.

> Also: Could you tag those bugs differently so that we can differentiate
> them from the remaining ones? We certainly don't want the Release Managers
> to think we want to add 61 more RC bugs for stretch when they are
> really less than that.

I'm not sure we should bother with that... they will all be RC soon anyway.

Lucas

Message #52 received at 830997@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox, reply):

From: Santiago Vila <sanvila@unex.es>

To: 830997@bugs.debian.org

Cc: Lucas Nussbaum <lucas@debian.org>, Emilio Pozuelo Monfort <pochu@debian.org>

Subject: Re: Bug#830997: release.debian.org: Permission to consider dpkg-buildpackage -A bugs as RC

Date: Thu, 21 Jul 2016 16:18:38 +0200

On Thu, Jul 21, 2016 at 02:21:02AM +0200, Santiago Vila wrote:

> Some of the new bugs are like this:
> 
>   make: *** No rule to make target 'build-indep'. Stop.
> 
> Targets build-arch and build-indep are mandatory, and this was already
> decided by dpkg author. This is not new, so I would raise those bugs
> to serious now.

A small clarification: What was decided by dpkg author is to drop a
hack which enabled those packages to build successfully.

The mass bug filing was announced by Niels here:

https://lists.debian.org/debian-devel/2016/04/msg00023.html

Quoting Niels:

> We intend to do another round of MBF for this problem once we have
> located a way to break down the remaining packages into smaller and more
> manageable sets.

I think the second round of MBF did not take place yet. So: How is it
possible that you (Lucas) found so few packages that didn't build?

Thanks.

Message #57 received at 830997@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox, reply):

From: Sven Joachim <svenjoac@gmx.de>

To: Santiago Vila <sanvila@unex.es>

Cc: 830997@bugs.debian.org, Lucas Nussbaum <lucas@debian.org>, Emilio Pozuelo Monfort <pochu@debian.org>

Subject: Re: Bug#830997: release.debian.org: Permission to consider dpkg-buildpackage -A bugs as RC

Date: Thu, 21 Jul 2016 16:40:05 +0200

On 2016-07-21 16:18 +0200, Santiago Vila wrote:

> On Thu, Jul 21, 2016 at 02:21:02AM +0200, Santiago Vila wrote:
>
>> Some of the new bugs are like this:
>> 
>>   make: *** No rule to make target 'build-indep'. Stop.
>> 
>> Targets build-arch and build-indep are mandatory, and this was already
>> decided by dpkg author. This is not new, so I would raise those bugs
>> to serious now.
>
> A small clarification: What was decided by dpkg author is to drop a
> hack which enabled those packages to build successfully.
>
> The mass bug filing was announced by Niels here:
>
> https://lists.debian.org/debian-devel/2016/04/msg00023.html
>
> Quoting Niels:
>
>> We intend to do another round of MBF for this problem once we have
>> located a way to break down the remaining packages into smaller and more
>> manageable sets.
>
> I think the second round of MBF did not take place yet.

It did, albeit a bit later than planned.  See Guillem's followup this
month[1] and the list of bugs Niels has filed[2].

Cheers,
       Sven


1. https://lists.debian.org/debian-devel/2016/07/msg00130.html
2. https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/pkgreport.cgi?tag=arch-all-and-any-missing-targets;users=niels@thykier.net

Message #62 received at 830997@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox, reply):

From: Lucas Nussbaum <lucas@debian.org>

To: Santiago Vila <sanvila@unex.es>

Cc: 830997@bugs.debian.org, Emilio Pozuelo Monfort <pochu@debian.org>

Subject: Re: Bug#830997: release.debian.org: Permission to consider dpkg-buildpackage -A bugs as RC

Date: Thu, 21 Jul 2016 16:49:05 +0200

clone 830997 -1
reassign -1 lintian
retitle -1 lintian: fails to detect missing build-indep target in 9 packages
thanks

On 21/07/16 at 16:18 +0200, Santiago Vila wrote:
> On Thu, Jul 21, 2016 at 02:21:02AM +0200, Santiago Vila wrote:
> 
> > Some of the new bugs are like this:
> > 
> >   make: *** No rule to make target 'build-indep'. Stop.
> > 
> > Targets build-arch and build-indep are mandatory, and this was already
> > decided by dpkg author. This is not new, so I would raise those bugs
> > to serious now.
> 
> A small clarification: What was decided by dpkg author is to drop a
> hack which enabled those packages to build successfully.
> 
> The mass bug filing was announced by Niels here:
> 
> https://lists.debian.org/debian-devel/2016/04/msg00023.html
> 
> Quoting Niels:
> 
> > We intend to do another round of MBF for this problem once we have
> > located a way to break down the remaining packages into smaller and more
> > manageable sets.
> 
> I think the second round of MBF did not take place yet. So: How is it
> possible that you (Lucas) found so few packages that didn't build?

Hi,

I indeed ran into many bugs already filed by Niels, and only filed bugs
for the packages where bugs were missing.

It seems that, when bugs were missing, lintian was unable to detect the
missing targets. So that's a bug in lintian (it fails to detect that
those 9 packages are missing build-indep). Cloning accordingly.

Also, the lintian page[1] includes many packages that are missing build-indep,
but don't build any Architecture:all package. That's still a bug in the
packages (as build-indep is required even in that case) but I wouldn't detect
it as I restricted my test to packages building Arch:all binaries.
Maybe it could make sense for lintian to distinguish those two cases
(missing build-indep and building arch:all vs missing build-indep and
not building arch:all).

Finally, it seems that dpkg still has a workaround for missing build-indep for
packages building only Arch:all binaries. For example, see this log for 
libgtk2-ex-podviewer-perl_0.18-1:

> dpkg-buildpackage
> -----------------
> 
> dpkg-buildpackage: info: source package libgtk2-ex-podviewer-perl
> dpkg-buildpackage: info: source version 0.18-1
> dpkg-buildpackage: info: source distribution unstable
> dpkg-buildpackage: info: source changed by Ryan Niebur <ryanryan52@gmail.com>
>  dpkg-source --before-build libgtk2-ex-podviewer-perl-0.18
>  fakeroot debian/rules clean
> dh clean
>    dh_testdir
>    dh_auto_clean
>    dh_clean
> dpkg-buildpackage: warning: debian/rules must be updated to support the 'build-arch' and 'build-indep' targets (at least 'build-indep' seems to be missing)
>  debian/rules build
> dh build
>    dh_testdir
>    dh_update_autotools_config
>    dh_auto_configure

That's why I did not run into more failures.

[1] https://lintian.debian.org/tags/debian-rules-missing-recommended-target.html

Grepping my build logs for the above warning message, the following 540
packages are missing build-indep (and building only Arch:all):

abicheck abntex adzapper apf-firewall apsfilter apt-dpkg-ref apticron aptoncd
apt-show-source archmbox aspell-cs asql attal-themes autoconf2.59 autoconf2.64
autopsy babiloo bauble beancounter biabam bindgraph binstats biojava-live
bittornado bjsonrpc bum cadubi castle-combat cdlabelgen cffi cfortran cgvg
chaksem checksecurity childsplay-alphabet-sounds-bg
childsplay-alphabet-sounds-ca childsplay-alphabet-sounds-de
childsplay-alphabet-sounds-el childsplay-alphabet-sounds-en-gb
childsplay-alphabet-sounds-es childsplay-alphabet-sounds-fr
childsplay-alphabet-sounds-it childsplay-alphabet-sounds-nb
childsplay-alphabet-sounds-nl childsplay-alphabet-sounds-pt
childsplay-alphabet-sounds-ro childsplay-alphabet-sounds-ru
childsplay-alphabet-sounds-sl childsplay-alphabet-sounds-sv clamassassin
cl-babel cl-closer-mop cl-cluck cl-contextl cl-fftw3 cl-flexichain cl-getopt
cli-common clipf cl-irc cl-irc-logger cl-lml2 cl-lml cl-lw-compat cl-mcclim
cl-modlisp cl-pg cl-photo cl-pipes cl-portable-aserve cl-ppcre cl-ptester
cl-pubmed cl-rlc cl-rt cl-split-sequence cl-xlunit cl-xmls cl-xptest coco-doc
colorgcc command-not-found console-cyrillic controlaula creoleparser crip
ctn-doc culmus-fancy customdeb cvs-mailcommit darcsweb dbix-easy-perl
ddccontrol-db debget debian-builder debian-zh-faq debsecan deps dh-buildinfo
dict-bouvier dictclient dictdlib dict-gazetteer2k dict-moby-thesaurus
discover-data ditrack dkimproxy dlint dlocate dns323-firmware-tools dns-browse
docbook2odf docbook5-xml docbook-simple docbook-xml doc-linux-hr doctorj
drobo-utils efp elida elscreen emacs-jabber epic4-help erc essays1743 ewipe
extra-xdg-menus festival-czech festival-it festvox-czech-dita festvox-czech-krb
festvox-czech-machac festvox-czech-ph fig2ps file-rc filler flamethrower
flexbackup flexi-streams flowscan fluid-soundfont focalinux fofix-dfsg
fonts-jsmath fortunes-bg fortunes-bofh-excuses fortunes-es fortunes-fr
fortunes-ru freepats fretsonfire-songs-muldjord fretsonfire-songs-sectoid
ftp-upload ftpwatch g2p-sk gaim-themes ganglia-web gastables geximon
gnome-audio gnome-blog gnupg-doc gnu-standards gpsim-doc graphmonkey gtkorphan
gtk-recordmydesktop gui-apt-key hatop hotssh htag html2wml htmlgen
hunspell-en-us ilohamail imediff2 imgsizer impose+ inform-mode ink-generator
iog jabber.py jailer jailtool jargon javamorph jclic jed-extra jirc jtex-base
junior-doc khmerconverter kimwitu-doc klone konfont ko.tex-extra-hlfont
ko.tex-unfonts leds-alix libalgorithm-checkdigits-perl
libalgorithm-dependency-perl libalgorithm-numerical-sample-perl libauthcas-perl
libbenchmark-progressbar-perl libbiblio-endnotestyle-perl libbiblio-isis-perl
libcache-simple-timedexpiry-perl libcgi-ajax-perl libchemistry-elements-perl
libclass-accessor-named-perl libclass-csv-perl libclass-default-perl
libclass-factory-perl libclass-mixinfactory-perl libclass-multimethods-perl
libclass-pluggable-perl libclass-whitehole-perl libconfig-apacheformat-perl
libcrypt-des-ede3-perl libcrypt-gpg-perl libdanga-socket-perl
libdata-buffer-perl libdata-flow-perl libdata-javascript-perl
libdata-validate-email-perl libdate-convert-perl libdate-hijri-perl
libdatetime-format-db2-perl libdbd-excel-perl libdesktop-notify-perl
libdir-purge-perl libemail-foldertype-perl libemail-received-perl liberror-perl
libexpect-perl libfile-copy-recursive-perl libfile-finder-perl libfile-pid-perl
libfile-policy-perl libfilter-eof-perl libfont-afm-perl libfortune-perl
libgd-svg-perl libgeo-metar-perl libgetopt-argvfile-perl libgetopt-mixed-perl
libgtk2-ex-podviewer-perl libhtml-element-extended-perl libhtml-stream-perl
libhtml-tagset-perl libhtml-tiny-perl libhttp-server-simple-recorder-perl
libimage-base-bundle-perl libimage-info-perl libimage-metadata-jpeg-perl
libipc-pubsub-perl libipc-sharedcache-perl libipc-signal-perl libjama
libjs-edit-area liblatex-tom-perl liblingua-en-namecase-perl
liblingua-stem-perl liblingua-stopwords-perl liblog-dispatch-filerotate-perl
liblogfile-rotate-perl liblog-trace-perl libmail-bulkmail-perl
libmail-sendmail-perl libmath-calculus-differentiate-perl
libmath-calculus-newtonraphson-perl libmath-fibonacci-perl
libmath-numbercruncher-perl libmethod-alias-perl libmime-base64-urlsafe-perl
libmodule-versions-report-perl libmp3-info-perl libmp4-info-perl libmqdb-perl
libnet-dns-async-perl libnet-imap-simple-ssl-perl
libnet-ldap-filterbuilder-perl libnet-rblclient-perl libnet-scp-expect-perl
libnet-sieve-script-perl libnetxap-perl libnmap-parser-perl
libobject-destroyer-perl libperlmenu-perl libphp-jpgraph
libpoe-component-client-ident-perl libpoe-component-server-http-perl
libproc-background-perl librcs-perl libscalar-properties-perl
libschedule-ratelimiter-perl libsendmail-pmilter-perl libset-nestedgroups-perl
libsnmp-mib-compiler-perl libsnmp-multi-perl libsnmp-session-perl
libsort-fields-perl libstatistics-test-sequence-perl libsvg-graph-perl
libsyntax-highlight-perl-improved-perl libtemplate-plugin-gd-perl
libtemplate-plugin-xml-perl libtemplate-plugin-yaml-perl
libtest-www-mechanize-cgiapp-perl libtext-wikicreole-perl
libtext-wikiformat-perl libtext-wrapi18n-perl libtnt libtut
libwebservice-musicbrainz-perl libwhisker2-perl
libwiki-toolkit-plugin-categoriser-perl libwiki-toolkit-plugin-ping-perl
libwordnet-querydata-perl libwwwbrowser-perl libwww-mediawiki-client-perl
libx11-freedesktop-desktopentry-perl libxml-csv-perl libxml-rss-feed-perl
libxml-tokeparser-perl libxml-validate-perl libxml-validator-schema-perl
lincredits log4cpp-doc log4net lprng-doc macchanger-gtk mailplate makejail
makepatch manpages-es manpages-es-extra manpages-tr mapivi mason mecab-jumandic
menu-l10n menu-xdg metacity-themes metainit metatheme-gilouche mffm-timecode
mh-e mimefilter minlog moblin-cursor-theme moblin-sound-theme mp3burn mpg123-el
mrb mrename multex-base muse-el musiclibrarian myspell-fa myspell-hr myspell-hy
myspell-ku nanoblogger-extra naturaldocs net-telnet-cisco nglister nicotine
nwsclient nwsserver oinkmaster olive oneliner-el ooolib-python
openoffice.org-en-au openoffice.org-hyphenation-pl openoffice.org-thesaurus-pl
opensrs-client openssh-blacklist openssl-blacklist openvpn-blacklist
oxygencursors papercut pari-elldata pari-galdata pari-galpol pari-seadata
partimage-doc pbnj pct-scanner-scripts pentaho-reporting-flow-engine
pentium-builder phamm php-xajax pkgsync pkpgcounter plait plib-doc poco-doc
popularity-contest postfix-cluebringer pppconfig prelude-correlator
prelude-notify prewikka psi-translations psrip pubtal pwrkap pybridge pyca pydb
pyftpd pygopherd py-libmpdclient pyparallel pyrex pysesame pysycache
python-authkit python-avc python-contract python-dhm python-facebook
python-iplib python-lamson python-pcs python-plwm python-pypdf
python-scriptutil python-tempita python-xmpp pyvtk qemu-launcher qmail-run
qmail-tools quickml randomplay rant rcconf renrot reportbug-ng rest2web sbackup
scalable-cyrfonts sclapp scowl scribus-template search-citeseer sendpage
set-crontab-perl sgml2x sgml-base-doc shanty sisc slay snakefood spkproxy
squidtaild squirrelmail-decode squirrelmail-locales stl-manual swaml swatch
sylseg-sk tagcloud taglog tcpwatch-httpproxy tegaki-python tegaki-recognize
tegaki-tools tegaki-train tegaki-zinnia-japanese
tegaki-zinnia-simplified-chinese thp tidy-proxy tk5 tk-brief topgit
tourney-manager trac-graphviz trackballs-music translate translate-docformat
treeline trivial-features trivial-gray-streams trscripts ttf-adf ttf-engadget
ttf-marvosym twisted-web2 txt2html txt2regex unp vimoutliner vzdump webmagick
wfrog whizzytex windows-el wmaker-data wpp x11proto-bigreqs x11proto-composite
x11proto-damage x11proto-dmx x11proto-fixes x11proto-print x11proto-record
x11proto-render x11proto-resource x11proto-scrnsaver x11proto-xcmisc
x11proto-xext x11proto-xf86bigfont x11proto-xf86dga x11proto-xf86dri
x11proto-xf86vidmode x11proto-xinerama xbitmaps xemacs21-packages xfonts-100dpi
xfonts-75dpi xfonts-base xfonts-bolkhov xfonts-cyrillic xfonts-encodings
xfonts-scalable xfonts-terminus xml-core xtalk xtide-coastline xtide-data
xtrans yappy yocto-reader yue-sounds-fso zoomer zope-maildrophost zope-mysqlda

- Lucas

Message #69 received at 830997@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox, reply):

From: Lucas Nussbaum <lucas@debian.org>

To: Sven Joachim <svenjoac@gmx.de>

Cc: Santiago Vila <sanvila@unex.es>, 830997@bugs.debian.org, Emilio Pozuelo Monfort <pochu@debian.org>

Subject: Re: Bug#830997: release.debian.org: Permission to consider dpkg-buildpackage -A bugs as RC

Date: Thu, 21 Jul 2016 17:01:16 +0200

On 21/07/16 at 16:40 +0200, Sven Joachim wrote:
> On 2016-07-21 16:18 +0200, Santiago Vila wrote:
> 
> > On Thu, Jul 21, 2016 at 02:21:02AM +0200, Santiago Vila wrote:
> >
> >> Some of the new bugs are like this:
> >> 
> >>   make: *** No rule to make target 'build-indep'. Stop.
> >> 
> >> Targets build-arch and build-indep are mandatory, and this was already
> >> decided by dpkg author. This is not new, so I would raise those bugs
> >> to serious now.
> >
> > A small clarification: What was decided by dpkg author is to drop a
> > hack which enabled those packages to build successfully.
> >
> > The mass bug filing was announced by Niels here:
> >
> > https://lists.debian.org/debian-devel/2016/04/msg00023.html
> >
> > Quoting Niels:
> >
> >> We intend to do another round of MBF for this problem once we have
> >> located a way to break down the remaining packages into smaller and more
> >> manageable sets.
> >
> > I think the second round of MBF did not take place yet.
> 
> It did, albeit a bit later than planned.  See Guillem's followup this
> month[1] and the list of bugs Niels has filed[2].

No, that's the list of bugs filed as part of the initial MBF (on 99
packages), as announced by Niels in April. Then later the severity was
upgraded from important to serious.

Lucas

Message #74 received at 830997@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox, reply):

From: Santiago Vila <sanvila@unex.es>

To: Emilio Pozuelo Monfort <pochu@debian.org>

Cc: 830997@bugs.debian.org

Subject: Re: Bug#830997: release.debian.org: Permission to consider dpkg-buildpackage -A bugs as RC

Date: Sat, 23 Jul 2016 19:20:14 +0200 (CEST)

Kind Release Managers:

All the bugs reported by Lucas Nussbaum last week which have not been
resolved yet are now either in "pending upload" state, or there is a
patch available:

https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/pkgreport.cgi?tag=qa-indep;users=debian-qa@lists.debian.org

Because it was not expected that we would discover a lot more bugs of
this type, I'd like this to be reconfirmed:

Still ok to consider this as a release goal?

(If yes, I will probably wait one more week for the dust to settle
before raising severities, or maybe wait for some kind of official
announcement).


As a summary, this is what we aim for:

* Every package in stretch creating both Arch:all and Arch:any
packages should build ok when using "dpkg-buildpackage -A" or
"dpkg-buildpackage -B". The command "dpkg-buildpackage -A"
should work in the Arch:all autobuilder, which runs amd64.

* Every package in stretch creating only Arch:all packages should
build ok when using "dpkg-buildpackage -A". The command
"dpkg-buildpackage -A" should work in the Arch:all autobuilder,
which runs amd64.

* It was already a release goal that "dpkg-buildpackage -B" should
always work (on the archs it is expected to work), but the official
autobuilders have been testing this for a lot of years already.


The above conditions would guarantee that every package in stretch may
be uploaded in source-only form.

Thanks.

Message #79 received at 830997@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox, reply):

From: Emilio Pozuelo Monfort <pochu@debian.org>

To: Santiago Vila <sanvila@unex.es>

Cc: 830997@bugs.debian.org

Subject: Re: Bug#830997: release.debian.org: Permission to consider dpkg-buildpackage -A bugs as RC

Date: Sun, 24 Jul 2016 10:58:43 +0200

On 23/07/16 19:20, Santiago Vila wrote:
> Kind Release Managers:
> 
> All the bugs reported by Lucas Nussbaum last week which have not been
> resolved yet are now either in "pending upload" state, or there is a
> patch available:
> 
> https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/pkgreport.cgi?tag=qa-indep;users=debian-qa@lists.debian.org
> 
> Because it was not expected that we would discover a lot more bugs of
> this type, I'd like this to be reconfirmed:
> 
> Still ok to consider this as a release goal?

Absolutely.

Thanks,
Emilio

Message #84 received at 830997@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox, reply):

From: Santiago Vila <sanvila@unex.es>

To: 830997@bugs.debian.org

Subject: Re: Bug#830997: release.debian.org: Permission to consider dpkg-buildpackage -A bugs as RC

Date: Sun, 24 Jul 2016 18:43:30 +0200 (CEST)

On Sun, 24 Jul 2016, Emilio Pozuelo Monfort wrote:

> On 23/07/16 19:20, Santiago Vila wrote:
>
> > Still ok to consider this as a release goal?
> 
> Absolutely.

Great, thanks!

On Wed, 20 Jul 2016, Lucas Nussbaum wrote:

> The additional bugs I filed are at:
>
> https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/pkgreport.cgi?tag=qa-indep;users=debian-qa@lists.debian.org

To celebrate, I've created four tags to classify *all* the bugs:

https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/pkgreport.cgi?users=sanvila@debian.org;tag=arch-all-swapped-binary-targets
https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/pkgreport.cgi?users=sanvila@debian.org;tag=arch-all-missing-build-indep
https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/pkgreport.cgi?users=sanvila@debian.org;tag=arch-all-arch-any-missing-build-indep
https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/pkgreport.cgi?users=sanvila@debian.org;tag=arch-all-arch-any-failing-binary-indep

This time it should be ok to add new bugs to those tags, because their
names are now clearly prefixed by either arch-all-arch-any or arch-all.

(The old tag, naively named "binary-indep" should be considered obsolete).

Thanks.

Message #89 received at 830997@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox, reply):

From: Santiago Vila <sanvila@unex.es>

To: 830997@bugs.debian.org

Subject: Re: Bug#830997: release.debian.org: Permission to consider dpkg-buildpackage -A bugs as RC

Date: Mon, 1 Aug 2016 23:23:14 +0200 (CEST)

Greetings.

I've finally raised to "serious" all the known bugs regarding
"dpkg-buildpackage -A" that were still open.

Thanks.

Message #94 received at 830997-done@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox, reply):

From: Niels Thykier <niels@thykier.net>

To: 830997-done@bugs.debian.org

Subject: Re: Bug#830997: release.debian.org: Permission to consider dpkg-buildpackage -A bugs as RC

Date: Sun, 11 Sep 2016 12:32:00 +0000

On Mon, 1 Aug 2016 23:23:14 +0200 (CEST) Santiago Vila <sanvila@unex.es>
wrote:
> Greetings.
> 
> I've finally raised to "serious" all the known bugs regarding
> "dpkg-buildpackage -A" that were still open.
> 
> Thanks.
> 
> 

AFAICT, this bug is now resolved - closing accordingly. :)

Thanks,
~Niels

Message #99 received at 830997@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox, reply):

From: Santiago Vila <sanvila@unex.es>

To: Niels Thykier <niels@thykier.net>

Cc: 830997@bugs.debian.org

Subject: Re: Bug#830997: release.debian.org: Permission to consider dpkg-buildpackage -A bugs as RC

Date: Sun, 11 Sep 2016 14:50:35 +0200 (CEST)

On Sun, 11 Sep 2016, Niels Thykier wrote:

> On Mon, 1 Aug 2016 23:23:14 +0200 (CEST) Santiago Vila <sanvila@unex.es>
> wrote:
> > Greetings.
> > 
> > I've finally raised to "serious" all the known bugs regarding
> > "dpkg-buildpackage -A" that were still open.
> > 
> > Thanks.
> 
> AFAICT, this bug is now resolved - closing accordingly. :)

It is resolved in the sense it was agreed to make this RC,
but I still expected the release policy to be updated accordingly:

https://release.debian.org/stretch/rc_policy.txt

before closing this report.

[ Not that updating the policy is particularly helpful. In fact,
  current policy already says "packages must autobuild" and there are
  still people who downgrade RC bugs about missing build-dependencies
  to "normal"... ].

Thanks.

Message #104 received at 830997@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox, reply):

From: Emilio Pozuelo Monfort <pochu@debian.org>

To: Santiago Vila <sanvila@unex.es>, 830997@bugs.debian.org

Subject: Re: Bug#830997: release.debian.org: Permission to consider dpkg-buildpackage -A bugs as RC

Date: Sun, 2 Oct 2016 17:01:54 +0200

On 11/09/16 14:50, Santiago Vila wrote:
> On Sun, 11 Sep 2016, Niels Thykier wrote:
> 
>> On Mon, 1 Aug 2016 23:23:14 +0200 (CEST) Santiago Vila <sanvila@unex.es>
>> wrote:
>>> Greetings.
>>>
>>> I've finally raised to "serious" all the known bugs regarding
>>> "dpkg-buildpackage -A" that were still open.
>>>
>>> Thanks.
>>
>> AFAICT, this bug is now resolved - closing accordingly. :)
> 
> It is resolved in the sense it was agreed to make this RC,
> but I still expected the release policy to be updated accordingly:
> 
> https://release.debian.org/stretch/rc_policy.txt
> 
> before closing this report.

I looked at that when I acked this, but I concluded that the policy already
includes arch:all as there really is nothing arch:any specific. My attempts at
mentioning arch:all only made the text too complicated.

I think things are fine as is.

Cheers,
Emilio

Message #109 received at 830997@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox, reply):

From: Santiago Vila <sanvila@unex.es>

To: Emilio Pozuelo Monfort <pochu@debian.org>

Cc: 830997@bugs.debian.org

Subject: Re: Bug#830997: release.debian.org: Permission to consider dpkg-buildpackage -A bugs as RC

Date: Sun, 2 Oct 2016 20:01:07 +0200 (CEST)

On Sun, 2 Oct 2016, Emilio Pozuelo Monfort wrote:

> > It is resolved in the sense it was agreed to make this RC,
> > but I still expected the release policy to be updated accordingly:
> > 
> > https://release.debian.org/stretch/rc_policy.txt
> > 
> > before closing this report.
> 
> I looked at that when I acked this, but I concluded that the policy already
> includes arch:all as there really is nothing arch:any specific. My attempts at
> mentioning arch:all only made the text too complicated.
> 
> I think things are fine as is.

Ok, I understand (and share) the goal of keeping the wording simple.

Now we "just" need to agree on the meaning of "packages must autobuild".

Some people still claim (even if it's not written anywhere) that it's
ok to downgrade FTBFS bugs when they didn't happen in buildd.debian.org.

My understanding of "packages must autobuild" is that the build should
succeed on any policy-compliant autobuilder which is sane and not
misconfigured.

Do I need another bug like this one so that Release Managers clarify
the meaning of "packages must autobuild"?

Thanks.

Send a report that this bug log contains spam.