Debian Bug report logs - #962766
autotools-dev: New versions upstream

Toggle useless messages

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

From: Vincent Lefevre <vincent@vinc17.net>

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

Subject: autotools-dev: New versions upstream

Date: Sat, 13 Jun 2020 18:41:07 +0200

Package: autotools-dev
Version: 20180224.1
Severity: normal

Hi,

There are new versions upstream.

-- System Information:
Debian Release: bullseye/sid
  APT prefers unstable-debug
  APT policy: (500, 'unstable-debug'), (500, 'stable-updates'), (500, 'unstable'), (500, 'testing'), (500, 'stable'), (1, 'experimental')
Architecture: amd64 (x86_64)

Kernel: Linux 5.6.0-2-amd64 (SMP w/8 CPU cores)
Kernel taint flags: TAINT_PROPRIETARY_MODULE, TAINT_OOT_MODULE, TAINT_UNSIGNED_MODULE
Locale: LANG=POSIX, LC_CTYPE=C.UTF-8 (charmap=UTF-8), LANGUAGE=POSIX (charmap=UTF-8)
Shell: /bin/sh linked to /bin/dash
Init: systemd (via /run/systemd/system)
LSM: AppArmor: enabled

-- no debconf information

-- 
Vincent Lefèvre <vincent@vinc17.net> - Web: <https://www.vinc17.net/>
100% accessible validated (X)HTML - Blog: <https://www.vinc17.net/blog/>
Work: CR INRIA - computer arithmetic / AriC project (LIP, ENS-Lyon)

Message #10 received at 962766@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox, reply):

From: Henrique de Moraes Holschuh <hmh@debian.org>

To: Vincent Lefevre <vincent@vinc17.net>, 962766@bugs.debian.org

Subject: Re: Bug#962766: autotools-dev: New versions upstream

Date: Sat, 13 Jun 2020 14:40:55 -0300

On Sat, 13 Jun 2020, Vincent Lefevre wrote:
> There are new versions upstream.

Yes, and they revert the existence of arch "x32".  Last time I asked for
help, nobody remotely interested in x32 answered.

I am seriously considering uploading it and effectively removing x32
support from Debian.

-- 
  Henrique Holschuh

Message #15 received at 962766@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox, reply):

From: Vincent Lefevre <vincent@vinc17.net>

To: Henrique de Moraes Holschuh <hmh@debian.org>

Cc: 962766@bugs.debian.org

Subject: Re: Bug#962766: autotools-dev: New versions upstream

Date: Sat, 13 Jun 2020 19:57:31 +0200

On 2020-06-13 14:40:55 -0300, Henrique de Moraes Holschuh wrote:
> On Sat, 13 Jun 2020, Vincent Lefevre wrote:
> > There are new versions upstream.
> 
> Yes, and they revert the existence of arch "x32".  Last time I asked for
> help, nobody remotely interested in x32 answered.

Thanks for the information. I didn't know that.

After looking at the diff, it seems that the change is minimal:

     x86_64:Linux:*:*)
-       if objdump -f /bin/sh | grep -q elf32-x86-64; then
-           echo "$UNAME_MACHINE"-pc-linux-"$LIBC"x32
-       else
-           echo "$UNAME_MACHINE"-pc-linux-"$LIBC"
-       fi
+       echo "$UNAME_MACHINE"-pc-linux-"$LIBC"
        exit ;;

But I might miss something (and I don't use x32 myself).

> I am seriously considering uploading it and effectively removing x32
> support from Debian.

This probably needs to be discussed and see what other distributions
do.

I got a suggestion to use the more recent upstream versions for the
next MPFR release. So in the mean time, I will stick with Debian's.

-- 
Vincent Lefèvre <vincent@vinc17.net> - Web: <https://www.vinc17.net/>
100% accessible validated (X)HTML - Blog: <https://www.vinc17.net/blog/>
Work: CR INRIA - computer arithmetic / AriC project (LIP, ENS-Lyon)

Message #20 received at 962766@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox, reply):

From: Thorsten Glaser <tg@mirbsd.de>

To: Henrique de Moraes Holschuh <hmh@debian.org>, Axel Beckert <abe@debian.org>

Cc: Vincent Lefevre <vincent@vinc17.net>, 962766@bugs.debian.org

Subject: Re: Bug#962766: autotools-dev: New versions upstream

Date: Sat, 13 Jun 2020 18:15:28 +0000 (UTC)

XTaran dixit:

>IIRC hast Du ab und an mal Zeugs mit x32 gemacht.

Erm… yesssss… I’m using x32 productively on my desktop at work…

>Via https://wiki.debian.org/TopicDebianDevel bin ich grade |ber das
>hier gestolpert:
>
>* last call for the existence of x32 in autotools-dev. Reply on
>  #962766
>
>Inbesondere https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=962766#10:

Henrique de Moraes Holschuh dixit:

>On Sat, 13 Jun 2020, Vincent Lefevre wrote:
>> There are new versions upstream.
>
>Yes, and they revert the existence of arch "x32".  Last time I asked for
>help, nobody remotely interested in x32 answered.

I haven’t ever seen this. I’ve prominently worked on x32 support and
am known to be a user relying on this and willing to help. You could
at least have asked on d-d-announce or something.

>I am seriously considering uploading it and effectively removing x32
>support from Debian.

Please don’t. This can trivially be carried locally (which we did for
other architectures, even new ones, before so has precedent) and we
can lobby upstream to retain it.

Thanks,
//mirabilos
--  
When he found out that the m68k port was in a pretty bad shape, he did
not, like many before him, shrug and move on; instead, he took it upon
himself to start compiling things, just so he could compile his shell.
How's that for dedication. -- Wouter, about my Debian/m68k revival

Message #25 received at 962766@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox, reply):

From: Thorsten Glaser <tg@mirbsd.de>

To: Vincent Lefevre <vincent@vinc17.net>

Cc: Henrique de Moraes Holschuh <hmh@debian.org>, 962766@bugs.debian.org

Subject: Re: Bug#962766: autotools-dev: New versions upstream

Date: Sat, 13 Jun 2020 18:27:41 +0000 (UTC)

Vincent Lefevre dixit:

>     x86_64:Linux:*:*)
>-       if objdump -f /bin/sh | grep -q elf32-x86-64; then
>-           echo "$UNAME_MACHINE"-pc-linux-"$LIBC"x32
>-       else
>-           echo "$UNAME_MACHINE"-pc-linux-"$LIBC"
>-       fi
>+       echo "$UNAME_MACHINE"-pc-linux-"$LIBC"
>        exit ;;

Note that this code is actually wrong anyway (and known to
mis-detect on my system due to klibc being LP64 on x32).

https://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/config-patches/2018-02/msg00019.html

We *MUST* do something like this instead:

    x86_64:Linux:*:*)
       case $(${CC_FOR_BUILD:-${CC:-gcc}} -dumpmachine) in
       *x32) echo "$UNAME_MACHINE"-pc-linux-"$LIBC"x32 ;;
       *)    echo "$UNAME_MACHINE"-pc-linux-"$LIBC"    ;;
       esac
       exit ;;

bye,
//mirabilos
-- 
> Hi, does anyone sell openbsd stickers by themselves and not packaged
> with other products?
No, the only way I've seen them sold is for $40 with a free OpenBSD CD.
	-- Haroon Khalid and Steve Shockley in gmane.os.openbsd.misc

Message #30 received at 962766@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox, reply):

From: Henrique de Moraes Holschuh <hmh@debian.org>

To: Thorsten Glaser <tg@mirbsd.de>

Cc: Axel Beckert <abe@debian.org>, Vincent Lefevre <vincent@vinc17.net>, 962766@bugs.debian.org

Subject: Re: Bug#962766: autotools-dev: New versions upstream

Date: Sat, 13 Jun 2020 16:23:07 -0300

On Sat, 13 Jun 2020, Thorsten Glaser wrote:
> I haven’t ever seen this. I’ve prominently worked on x32 support and
> am known to be a user relying on this and willing to help. You could
> at least have asked on d-d-announce or something.

I emailed whomever I could track down at the time, as well as people
that were suggested as "might be interested" by the ones I managed to
reach.  This is like, the third time I try to get a x32 enthusiast to
help ?

If https://wiki.debian.org/X32Port was up-to-date, the issue might have
been resolved a long time ago.

An email to d-devel might be acceptable (unlike sending it to d-d-a, the
fact that you even suggest d-d-a to reach a x32 porter thruly worries
me).  I should have considered sending it more strongly...  and likely
would, before going through with the removal.

But IMO, arches *must* have up-to-date, active points of contact, and
that they must be easy to locate when you need them.  That biased me
against sending emails around to lots of people.  Oh well, my mistake I
suppose.

Note that on previous tries, I did email GNU config upstream, and as far
as I recall, the people behind the original patches for x32, and asked
around for people in #d-devel in IRC, etc.

Also, please keep in mind that I went out of my way to help x32 deploy
in gnu config and Debian at the time it was introduced, it is not like I
have anything against x32 or its continued existence.

> >I am seriously considering uploading it and effectively removing x32
> >support from Debian.
> 
> Please don’t. This can trivially be carried locally (which we did for
> other architectures, even new ones, before so has precedent) and we
> can lobby upstream to retain it.

Sure, please send me a patch that applies against latest upstream and I
will carry it for as long as it works *and* if it breaks, delay new
upstreams for a while to get it fixed (that means a few weeks/months,
not an year, though).

However, I *recommend* that this page get a proper update including a
list of active points of contact: https://wiki.debian.org/X32Port

And that effort be made to restore x32 in GNU config upstream, even if
it means convincing upstream to accept the dependency on pre-processors.

-- 
  Henrique Holschuh

Message #35 received at 962766@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox, reply):

From: Thorsten Glaser <tg@mirbsd.de>

To: Henrique de Moraes Holschuh <hmh@debian.org>, 962766@bugs.debian.org, John Paul Adrian Glaubitz <glaubitz@physik.fu-berlin.de>

Cc: Axel Beckert <abe@debian.org>, Vincent Lefevre <vincent@vinc17.net>, debian-bugs-dist@lists.debian.org

Subject: Re: Bug#962766: autotools-dev: New versions upstream

Date: Sat, 13 Jun 2020 19:48:09 +0000 (UTC)

Henrique de Moraes Holschuh dixit:

>I emailed whomever I could track down at the time, as well as people
>that were suggested as "might be interested" by the ones I managed to
>reach.  This is like, the third time I try to get a x32 enthusiast to
>help ?

Hrm okay. We apparently are somewhat disconnected, although I still
hang in #debian-x32 on Freenode.

>If https://wiki.debian.org/X32Port was up-to-date, the issue might have
>been resolved a long time ago.

I added the IRC there. We seem to not have a porter list.
Aurélien might know who has porter upload rights; I’d guess
me, cbmuser, perhaps kilobyte and maybe Daniel Schepler(?),
whom I haven’t seen in ages.

>An email to d-devel might be acceptable (unlike sending it to d-d-a, the
>fact that you even suggest d-d-a to reach a x32 porter thruly worries

Sorry, d-devel is much too high-traffic for me currently, and
very polarising and hurting during some… discussions some years
ago so I had to unsubscribe.

>But IMO, arches *must* have up-to-date, active points of contact, and
>that they must be easy to locate when you need them.  That biased me

Agreed. I know cbmuser does the buildds, but I don’t know who
is currently involved. I did tend to consider my status more
like “user who occasionally helps fixing stuff” than porter,
but if this is what it takes to keep x32, I’d be willing to do
more. But we need more coordination for that…

>Note that on previous tries, I did email GNU config upstream, and as far
>as I recall, the people behind the original patches for x32, and asked
>around for people in #d-devel in IRC, etc.
>
>Also, please keep in mind that I went out of my way to help x32 deploy
>in gnu config and Debian at the time it was introduced, it is not like I
>have anything against x32 or its continued existence.

Okay. Thanks, and appreciated. I was pointed to this bug by
an eMail that… somewhat interrupted me during work, so I was
scrambling to respond quickly. No slight or something intended.

>> >I am seriously considering uploading it and effectively removing x32
>> >support from Debian.

This was what alarmed me.

>Sure, please send me a patch that applies against latest upstream and I
>will carry it for as long as it works *and* if it breaks, delay new
>upstreams for a while to get it fixed (that means a few weeks/months,
>not an year, though).

Okay. That’s an impressive offer, thank you. I’ll work on this…
tomorrow, if I can make it.

>However, I *recommend* that this page get a proper update including a
>list of active points of contact: https://wiki.debian.org/X32Port

Indeed. I don’t currently know who to ask, but I’ll point cbmuser
to this bug and ask aurel32. I’ve also added an appropriate section
near the very top of the page.

>And that effort be made to restore x32 in GNU config upstream, even if
>it means convincing upstream to accept the dependency on pre-processors.

Preprocessor could be even better, if we have CPP_FOR_BUILD we can
go with the ifdef used in normal program code as well. But I fear
there is a reluctance (I was informed that they wish to deprecate
CC_FOR_BUILD entirely, in the above-mentioned thread).

Thanks for the informative response,
//mirabilos
-- 
<ch> you introduced a merge commit        │<mika> % g rebase -i HEAD^^
<mika> sorry, no idea and rebasing just fscked │<mika> Segmentation
<ch> should have cloned into a clean repo      │  fault (core dumped)
<ch> if I rebase that now, it's really ugh     │<mika:#grml> wuahhhhhh

Message #40 received at 962766@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox, reply):

From: Jessica Clarke <jrtc27@debian.org>

To: Thorsten Glaser <tg@mirbsd.de>, 962766@bugs.debian.org

Cc: Henrique de Moraes Holschuh <hmh@debian.org>, John Paul Adrian Glaubitz <glaubitz@physik.fu-berlin.de>, Axel Beckert <abe@debian.org>, Vincent Lefevre <vincent@vinc17.net>

Subject: Re: Bug#962766: autotools-dev: New versions upstream

Date: Mon, 15 Jun 2020 01:17:22 +0100

As mentioned elsewhere, I had forgotten my patch got reverted upstream.
I've now submitted a new one[0] that's hopefully acceptable to upstream
and should also be sufficient for Debian (and tg's case my previous
patch broke) given build-essential includes a compiler for the build
architecture. It's a shame that x32 gets treated as a second-class
citizen, but at least it's somewhat supported (and I'm not sure the
fallback (heuristic, given you _can_ mix and match userspace programs) I
mention in the patch is worth bothering with).

Jess

[0] https://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/config-patches/2020-06/msg00005.html

Message #47 received at 962766-close@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox, reply):

From: Debian FTP Masters <ftpmaster@ftp-master.debian.org>

To: 962766-close@bugs.debian.org

Subject: Bug#962766: fixed in autotools-dev 20220109.1

Date: Sat, 05 Feb 2022 19:05:47 +0000

Source: autotools-dev
Source-Version: 20220109.1
Done: Henrique de Moraes Holschuh <hmh@debian.org>

We believe that the bug you reported is fixed in the latest version of
autotools-dev, which is due to be installed in the Debian FTP archive.

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 962766@bugs.debian.org,
and the maintainer will reopen the bug report if appropriate.

Debian distribution maintenance software
pp.
Henrique de Moraes Holschuh <hmh@debian.org> (supplier of updated autotools-dev 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@ftp-master.debian.org)


-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA512

Format: 1.8
Date: Mon, 31 Jan 2022 11:43:17 -0300
Source: autotools-dev
Architecture: source
Version: 20220109.1
Distribution: unstable
Urgency: medium
Maintainer: Henrique de Moraes Holschuh <hmh@debian.org>
Changed-By: Henrique de Moraes Holschuh <hmh@debian.org>
Closes: 894187 962766 973899 989944 1003400
Changes:
 autotools-dev (20220109.1) unstable; urgency=medium
 .
   [ Henrique de Moraes Holschuh ]
   * sync to upstream git 2022-01-09
     [commit c179db1b6f2ae484bfca1e9f8bae273e3319fa7d]
     + Add support for csky, loongarch64, RISC v6, and a few others
       (closes: #894187, #962766, #989944, #1003400)
     + x86_64 x32 ABI support needs $CC_FOR_BUILD set and operational
     + config.sub(1) and config.guess(1) are now in GNU config, moved
       upstream from autoconf (autoconf 2.70)
   * Ship config.sub(1) and config.guess(1) manpages in autotools-dev
     These manpages were previously shipped by the autoconf package, so
     autotools-dev now Replaces+Breaks autoconf (<< 2.70~).  Backports
     of this package will have to work around this issue (e.g. by not
     shipping the manpages to be able to remove the replaces+breaks).
     (closes: #973899)
   * debian: switch to the dh sequencer, and to debhelper compat level 12
     + Run package test suite during build (make check)
   * debian: Reenable git tracking of ChangeLog, and update it for
     the new upstream release manually, otherwise we'd get Debian packaging
     artifacts in it.  This will be improved in the future.
   * debian/control: bump standards version to 4.6.0, no changes required
   * debian/control: set rules-requires-root to no
   * debian/README.source: add, with relevant comments about the upstream
     ChangeLog generation, and the manpages causing a conflict with the
     autoconf packages in Debian 11 and earlier.
   * debian/copyright: minor updates
   * debian/.gitignore: add
 .
   [ Debian Janitor ]
   * debian/control: Use secure URI in Homepage field
Checksums-Sha1:
 a67201cdeaeb38755a27ce4429ba1a0b94676e44 1661 autotools-dev_20220109.1.dsc
 74c662e3e9d5046167dd89b7b9a0b54c4fb1cb02 87340 autotools-dev_20220109.1.tar.xz
 2f1026a668bc18b21e20f8a75cb87829a2106689 6462 autotools-dev_20220109.1_amd64.buildinfo
Checksums-Sha256:
 f9ccc67437ff52a7882d6b91e7ca8bf0a316c0c1452093992bd5c5fc3b29c090 1661 autotools-dev_20220109.1.dsc
 8b05e5ad56cd7d9a15e9b2931eb429b6324bb89f1b46de3baf3651286dead8c1 87340 autotools-dev_20220109.1.tar.xz
 dbab63040c086a3026bc85a5c22e2a96328f0df6d10ba90f54cc906e9799a666 6462 autotools-dev_20220109.1_amd64.buildinfo
Files:
 874b76097fca24dfa6c2df0612aa5e34 1661 devel optional autotools-dev_20220109.1.dsc
 ffdd743da36d5c922c90e26949f3835c 87340 devel optional autotools-dev_20220109.1.tar.xz
 8c3f3679c73c957e2471d8c53a3804a1 6462 devel optional autotools-dev_20220109.1_amd64.buildinfo

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
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=VnfS
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

Send a report that this bug log contains spam.