Re: Buildd & binary-indep

[Dmitry E. Oboukhov]

>> There is one src-package which builds a few packages with architecture
>> -all and -any. http://packages.qa.debian.org/w/wordnet.html
>> 
>> If this package is built it  wants more than one gigabyte (~1.2-1.4G)
>> RAM to build. So there are two buildd servers can't build
>> *architecture:all* packages. So this package can't pass into testing
>> for a long time (more than 120 days).

AB> This raises the question why binary-indep targets are built when not needed.
Yes :) So I wrote the subject :)

AB> If so, you could build it in qemu.

It seems that Debian doesn't contain all files which are nessesary to
install Debian in qemu. Could You give me a link to how to install
debian/armel(etc) in qemu?

-- 
... mpd is off

. ''`.   Dmitry E. Oboukhov
: :’  :   email: un...@debian.org jabber://un...@uvw.ru
`. `~’  GPGKey: 1024D / F8E26537 2006-11-21
  `- 1B23 D4F8 8EC0 D902 0555  E438 AB8C 00CF F8E2 6537


signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Re: Buildd & binary-indep

[Dmitry E. Oboukhov]

>> If this package is built it  wants more than one gigabyte (~1.2-1.4G)
>> RAM to build. So there are two buildd servers can't build
>> *architecture:all* packages. So this package can't pass into testing
>> for a long time (more than 120 days).

SG> What about building this architecture:all package only in binary-indep?
SG> Like in the attached patch... This way, the buildds won't try to build them.

SG> Cheers,

SG> --
SG> Stéphane

SG> diff -u wordnet-3.0/debian/rules wordnet-3.0/debian/rules
SG> --- wordnet-3.0/debian/rules
SG> +++ wordnet-3.0/debian/rules
SG> @@ -31,7 +31,7 @@
SG> rm -f goldendict-wordnet.dsl goldendict-wordnet.dsl.dz
SG> rm -f goldendict-wordnet_abrv.dsl goldendict-wordnet.bmp

SG> -build/goldendict-wordnet:: goldendict-wordnet.dsl.dz 
goldendict-wordnet_abrv.dsl

goldendict-wordnet is binary-indep package, so it must be built in
binary-indep target :)

-- 
... mpd is off

. ''`.   Dmitry E. Oboukhov
: :’  :   email: un...@debian.org jabber://un...@uvw.ru
`. `~’  GPGKey: 1024D / F8E26537 2006-11-21
  `- 1B23 D4F8 8EC0 D902 0555  E438 AB8C 00CF F8E2 6537


signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Bug#598000: ITP: openfeiton - open source implemention of fetion protocol client

[Aron Xu]

Package: wnpp
Severity: wishlist
X-Debbugs-CC: debian-devel@lists.debian.org

 * Package name: openfetion
   Version : 1.9
   Upstream Author : levin108 
 * URL : http://basiccoder.com/openfetion
 * Licenses: GPL with OpenSSL exception
   Programming Lang: C
   Description :
openfetion is a fetion client for Linux based on GTK+2.0, using
Fetion  
Protocol Version 4.
. 
It supports most useful functions of China Mobile Fetion, more
important, it's small and fast, and is better in look.

-- 
Regards,
Aron Xu


signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Re: Buildd & binary-indep

[Julien Cristau]

On Sat, Sep 25, 2010 at 00:18:44 +0200, Adam Borowski wrote:

> On Fri, Sep 24, 2010 at 11:55:32PM +0200, Stéphane Glondu wrote:
> > What about building this architecture:all package only in binary-indep?
> > Like in the attached patch... This way, the buildds won't try to build them.
> 
> > diff -u wordnet-3.0/debian/rules wordnet-3.0/debian/rules
> > -build/goldendict-wordnet:: goldendict-wordnet.dsl.dz 
> > goldendict-wordnet_abrv.dsl
> > +install/goldendict-wordnet:: goldendict-wordnet.dsl.dz 
> > goldendict-wordnet_abrv.dsl
> 
> Uhm, but shouldn't that massive multi-hour _building_ of data be in a
> "build" (specifically, "build-indep") target rather than "install"?
> 
Not if you don't want it to happen on buildds.

Cheers,
Julien


signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Re: Buildd & binary-indep

[Joachim Breitner]

Hi,

Am Samstag, den 25.09.2010, 00:18 +0200 schrieb Adam Borowski:
> On Fri, Sep 24, 2010 at 11:55:32PM +0200, Stéphane Glondu wrote:
> > What about building this architecture:all package only in binary-indep?
> > Like in the attached patch... This way, the buildds won't try to build them.
> 
> > diff -u wordnet-3.0/debian/rules wordnet-3.0/debian/rules
> > -build/goldendict-wordnet:: goldendict-wordnet.dsl.dz 
> > goldendict-wordnet_abrv.dsl
> > +install/goldendict-wordnet:: goldendict-wordnet.dsl.dz 
> > goldendict-wordnet_abrv.dsl
> 
> Uhm, but shouldn't that massive multi-hour _building_ of data be in a
> "build" (specifically, "build-indep") target rather than "install"?

one would expect that it works this way, any many people before you were
surprised by this fact. The problem is that build-indep and build-arch
are not required targets, and there is no easy way of checking whether
they exist.

It was suggested to make these targets a requirement, but so far nobody
dared to push the issue:
http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=218893


Maybe now, with the DEP process, this is something that could be
tackled? I for one would very much welcome such a change.

Greetings,
Joachim

-- 
Joachim "nomeata" Breitner
Debian Developer
  nome...@debian.org | ICQ# 74513189 | GPG-Keyid: 4743206C
  JID: nome...@joachim-breitner.de | http://people.debian.org/~nomeata


signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part

Bug#598026: ITP: libclass-handle-perl -- module to create objects which are handles to classes

[gregor herrmann]

Package: wnpp
Severity: wishlist
Owner: gregor herrmann 

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA256


* Package name: libclass-handle-perl
  Version : 1.07
  Upstream Author : Adam Kennedy 
* URL : http://search.cpan.org/dist/Class-Handle/
* License : Artistic or GPL-1+
  Programming Lang: Perl
  Description : module to create objects which are handles to classes

Class::Handle is a Perl module that attempts to provide a convenient object
wrapper around the various different types of functions that can be performed
on a class. It provides what is effectively a combined API from UNIVERSAL,
Class::ISA and Class::Inspector for obtaining information about a class, and
some additional task methods.

-BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-
Version: GnuPG v1.4.10 (GNU/Linux)
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=xay3
-END PGP SIGNATURE-



-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Archive: 
http://lists.debian.org/20100925135427.4691.45384.report...@belanna.comodo.priv.at

Re: Buildd & binary-indep

[Adam Borowski]

On Sat, Sep 25, 2010 at 03:03:51PM +0200, Joachim Breitner wrote:
> > Uhm, but shouldn't that massive multi-hour _building_ of data be in a
> > "build" (specifically, "build-indep") target rather than "install"?
> 
> one would expect that it works this way, any many people before you were
> surprised by this fact. The problem is that build-indep and build-arch
> are not required targets, and there is no easy way of checking whether
> they exist.

Oh, right.  That's indeed nasty.

I've skimmed through discussions about this matter, and the problem seems to
be that make does not provide a way to tell why it failed -- so it's not
possible to tell if the "build-indep" target exists.

Except, make does give an unique error message.  It may differ in various
versions of make or locales, but at least for GNU make (which we do require)
it's always different from anything else that can go wrong.

So, here's my take (attached).  It's a kludge, but appears to be robust.

> Maybe now, with the DEP process, this is something that could be
> tackled? I for one would very much welcome such a change.

The script I attached issues a warning to stdout; if we can ask one of the
fine folks who run those rebuilds of the whole archive to use something like
that, we could then grep build logs for that message.

Miaow!
-- 
1KB // Microsoft corollary to Hanlon's razor:
//  Never attribute to stupidity what can be
//  adequately explained by malice.
#!/bin/sh

if ! [ -x debian/rules ]
  then echo "No debian/rules!" 2>&1;exit 2;fi

# Policy 4.9 says the first line must be literally `#!/usr/bin/make -f', but
# IIRC some packages tack on extra parameters.
if ! head -n1 debian/rules|grep -q '^#! */usr/bin/make *-f *$'
  then
echo "debian/rules doesn't conform to policy 4.9, falling back to 'build'."
debian/rules build
exit
fi

# Hairy, but safe against locales and changed error messages.
make -f /dev/null build-indep 2>unique-tmp-1
(debian/rules build-indep && rm unique-tmp-1) 3>&1 1>&2 2>&3 |tee unique-tmp-2
cmp -s unique-tmp-1 unique-tmp-2
case $? in
  0) echo "The build-indep target doesn't exist, falling back to 'build'."
 debian/rules build;RET=$? ;;
  1) RET=2 ;;
  2) RET=0 ;;
esac

rm -f unique-tmp-1 unique-tmp-2
exit $RET


signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Re: Buildd & binary-indep

[Adam Borowski]

On Sat, Sep 25, 2010 at 11:26:53AM +0400, Dmitry E. Oboukhov wrote:
> AB> If so, you could build it in qemu.
> 
> It seems that Debian doesn't contain all files which are nessesary to
> install Debian in qemu. Could You give me a link to how to install
> debian/armel(etc) in qemu?

While I have no clue either -- I guess the debian-installer docs may have
that information, you can cheat by using ready images:

http://people.debian.org/~aurel32/qemu/armel/

-- 
1KB // Microsoft corollary to Hanlon's razor:
//  Never attribute to stupidity what can be
//  adequately explained by malice.


signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Re: Buildd & binary-indep

[Joachim Breitner]

Hi,

Am Samstag, den 25.09.2010, 17:04 +0200 schrieb Adam Borowski:
> On Sat, Sep 25, 2010 at 03:03:51PM +0200, Joachim Breitner wrote:
> > > Uhm, but shouldn't that massive multi-hour _building_ of data be in a
> > > "build" (specifically, "build-indep") target rather than "install"?
> > 
> > one would expect that it works this way, any many people before you were
> > surprised by this fact. The problem is that build-indep and build-arch
> > are not required targets, and there is no easy way of checking whether
> > they exist.
> 
> Oh, right.  That's indeed nasty.
> 
> I've skimmed through discussions about this matter, and the problem seems to
> be that make does not provide a way to tell why it failed -- so it's not
> possible to tell if the "build-indep" target exists.
> 
> Except, make does give an unique error message.  It may differ in various
> versions of make or locales, but at least for GNU make (which we do require)
> it's always different from anything else that can go wrong.

I’m still not convinced why we could not (after a release) just make it
required, fix packages using cdbs or dh7 centrally, wait for half a year
(while filing bugs etc.), then make the the buildds start calling
build-indep and NMU the remaining failing packages.

But a script like yours could indeed help to reduce the fallout.

Greetings,
Joachim

-- 
Joachim "nomeata" Breitner
Debian Developer
  nome...@debian.org | ICQ# 74513189 | GPG-Keyid: 4743206C
  JID: nome...@joachim-breitner.de | http://people.debian.org/~nomeata


signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part

Re: Buildd & binary-indep

[Cyril Brulebois]

Dmitry E. Oboukhov  (25/09/2010):
> It seems that Debian doesn't contain all files which are nessesary
> to install Debian in qemu. Could You give me a link to how to
> install debian/armel(etc) in qemu?

qemu-system-$arch + debian-installer-$version-netboot-$arch?

Mraw,
KiBi.


signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Watch Airtel Champions League Twenty20 On live TV

[Akaash m]

[image: .]  [image: 1]

Watch Airtel Champions League Twenty20 from sep10



 [image: 1]  [image: .]

Watch Now 

Bug#598044: ITP: autoconf-dickey -- automatic configure script builder (Thomas Dickey's version)

[Sven Joachim]

Package: wnpp
Owner: Sven Joachim 
Severity: wishlist

* Package name: autoconf-dickey
  Version : 2.52-20100814
  Upstream Author : David MacKenzie
Thomas Dickey
* URL or Web page : http://invisible-island.net/autoconf/autoconf.html
* License : GPLv2+
  Description : automatic configure script builder (Thomas Dickey's version)

 This hacked version of autoconf is required to bootstrap ncurses and
 some other packages maintained upstream by Thomas Dickey. It should
 not be used for other purposes.


Yet another autoconf version, as if the four that we already have in the
archive weren't enough. :-(  But it is needed for ncurses if we ever
need to patch configure.in, see #580190.



-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Archive: http://lists.debian.org/87eichzlwm@turtle.gmx.de

Re: Buildd & binary-indep

[Dmitry E. Oboukhov]

JB> The problem is that build-indep and build-arch
JB> are not required targets, and there is no easy way of checking whether
JB> they exist.

http://www.us.debian.org/doc/debian-policy/ch-source.html#s-debianrules

=quote

Since an interactive debian/rules script makes it impossible to
auto-compile that package and also makes it hard for other people to
reproduce the same binary package, all required targets must be
non-interactive. At a minimum, required targets are the ones called by
dpkg-buildpackage, namely, clean, binary, binary-arch, binary-indep,
and build. It also follows that any target that these targets depend
on must also be non-interactive. 

=quote

So if buildd calls binary-arch then it can build only architecture
packages.

-- 

. ''`.   Dmitry E. Oboukhov
: :’  :   email: un...@debian.org jabber://un...@uvw.ru
`. `~’  GPGKey: 1024D / F8E26537 2006-11-21
  `- 1B23 D4F8 8EC0 D902 0555  E438 AB8C 00CF F8E2 6537


--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Archive: http://lists.debian.org/20100925192225.ga5...@nbw.dhome.lan

Re: Buildd & binary-indep

[James Vega]

On Sat, Sep 25, 2010 at 11:22:26PM +0400, Dmitry E. Oboukhov wrote:
> JB> The problem is that build-indep and build-arch
> JB> are not required targets, and there is no easy way of checking whether
> JB> they exist.
> 
> http://www.us.debian.org/doc/debian-policy/ch-source.html#s-debianrules
> 
> =quote
> 
> Since an interactive debian/rules script makes it impossible to
> auto-compile that package and also makes it hard for other people to
> reproduce the same binary package, all required targets must be
> non-interactive. At a minimum, required targets are the ones called by
> dpkg-buildpackage, namely, clean, binary, binary-arch, binary-indep,
> and build. It also follows that any target that these targets depend
> on must also be non-interactive. 
> 
> =quote
> 
> So if buildd calls binary-arch then it can build only architecture
> packages.

No, it builds all the content for arch:all and non-arch:all, but only
creates the non-arch:all binaries.  The issue is that there's currently
no way for the buildds to say "Only build the non-arch:all content"
since the only required build target is "build".

You can work around it, as has been pointed out in this thread, by
moving arch:all stuff outside of the build target to something which the
binary-indep target has a pre-requisite on, but then you're building as
root.

-- 
James
GPG Key: 1024D/61326D40 2003-09-02 James Vega 


signature.asc
Description: Digital signature