severity 1068809 normal
reassign 1068809 ftp.debian.org
thanks
Dear Debian ftpmasters:
We (the participants in this bug) believe that the package dh-buildinfo
can be removed now, and we request that it's removed.
The rationale for deprecating dh-buildinfo is explained
in a very detailed way in
I'd actually suggest to file a new bug, and refer to this one in that.
And I'd like to make 1068809: 1088392, 1089906, 1089900, 1089911, 1088395,
1088393, 1088394, 1088380, 1089892, 1089901, and 1088384 blockers against
this bug again, so we can reference this bug to see what cleanup still
needs
On Wed, Dec 18, 2024 at 10:07:45PM +0100, Chris Hofstaedtler wrote:
> I've NMUed all packages that were going to FTBFS, and had no open RM
> bug or FTBFSed already.
wheeehooo, that's awesome, thank you! <3
> > If that's actually the case (can someone please confirm?), then it
> > would seem that
Control: unblock -1 by 1088380 1088384 1088392 1088393 1088394 1088395 1089892
1089900 1089901 1089906 1089911
On Thu, Dec 19, 2024 at 02:05:32AM +0100, Santiago Vila wrote:
> Thanks Yann for showing up! Now we know that we are all in agreement for this.
>
> For completeness, I've rebuilt the 27
Thanks Yann for showing up! Now we know that we are all in agreement for this.
For completeness, I've rebuilt the 272 packages which BD on dh-buildinfo and
found
that the following ones do not build from source:
bcron
csound
eccodes
gnumeric
leaktracer
libcache-lru-perl
libept
libjson-webtoken-
quot;Guillem
> Jover" , "Yann Dirson" , "Helmut
> Grohne"
> Envoyé: Mercredi 18 Décembre 2024 22:07:45
> Objet: Bug#1068809: dh-buildinfo: consider deprecating and removing the
> package
>
> * Santiago Vila [241218 15:12]:
> > > Fewer than
* Santiago Vila [241218 15:12]:
> > Fewer than 20 packages will need changes, some of these packages
> > have been asked to be removed themselves. If we have no immediate
> > urgency in getting rid of src:dh-buildinfo, I think it's manageable.
>
> Hi. There was no immediate urgency in getting rid
El 14/12/24 a las 14:23, Chris Hofstaedtler escribió:
* Santiago Vila [241214 14:18]:
El 14/12/24 a las 14:09, Chris Hofstaedtler escribió:
I think we can just fix the packages actually *calling*
dh_buildinfo, if necessary with NMUs.
We could, but that way we are introducing quite a bunch of
* Santiago Vila [241214 14:18]:
> El 14/12/24 a las 14:09, Chris Hofstaedtler escribió:
> > I think we can just fix the packages actually *calling*
> > dh_buildinfo, if necessary with NMUs.
>
> We could, but that way we are introducing quite a bunch of RC bugs,
> which is what I tried to avoid wh
El 14/12/24 a las 14:09, Chris Hofstaedtler escribió:
On Sat, Dec 14, 2024 at 01:59:51PM +0100, Santiago Vila wrote:
I believe you just need to add these three lines to d/control:
Breaks: dh-buildinfo
Replaces: dh-buildinfo
Provides: dh-buildinfo
In addition to those three fields, the idea wo
On Sat, Dec 14, 2024 at 02:07:24PM +0100, Niels Thykier wrote:
> Thanks. It is now committed as 97819c3cf66633b39af06e31d40631f5e3c94943.
thank you! <3
> I went with Policy 7.6.2 (using Conflicts rather than Breaks) since that
> avoids lintian warnings for version constraints and should still be
On Sat, Dec 14, 2024 at 01:59:51PM +0100, Santiago Vila wrote:
> El 14/12/24 a las 13:37, Holger Levsen escribió:
> > On Sat, Dec 14, 2024 at 12:51:27PM +0100, Niels Thykier wrote:
> > > Ok, can someone provide a salsa MR or a patch against debhelper for that
> > > base of what we are pulling into
Holger Levsen:
On Sat, Dec 14, 2024 at 01:46:18PM +0100, Niels Thykier wrote:
A quick codesearch suggests that `dh_buildinfo` still appears in about 20-25
packages and not all of them having a `if dh_buildinfo exists` guard. So if
I add those without a `dh_buildinfo` script to go with it, there
El 14/12/24 a las 13:37, Holger Levsen escribió:
On Sat, Dec 14, 2024 at 12:51:27PM +0100, Niels Thykier wrote:
Ok, can someone provide a salsa MR or a patch against debhelper for that
base of what we are pulling into debhelper, so I can easier review what I
would potentially accept?
I believe
On Sat, Dec 14, 2024 at 01:46:18PM +0100, Niels Thykier wrote:
> A quick codesearch suggests that `dh_buildinfo` still appears in about 20-25
> packages and not all of them having a `if dh_buildinfo exists` guard. So if
> I add those without a `dh_buildinfo` script to go with it, there will be
> FT
Holger Levsen:
On Sat, Dec 14, 2024 at 12:51:27PM +0100, Niels Thykier wrote:
Ok, can someone provide a salsa MR or a patch against debhelper for that
base of what we are pulling into debhelper, so I can easier review what I
would potentially accept?
I believe you just need to add these three
On Sat, Dec 14, 2024 at 12:51:27PM +0100, Niels Thykier wrote:
> Ok, can someone provide a salsa MR or a patch against debhelper for that
> base of what we are pulling into debhelper, so I can easier review what I
> would potentially accept?
I believe you just need to add these three lines to d/co
Holger Levsen:
On Sun, Dec 08, 2024 at 12:02:56PM +0100, Niels Thykier wrote:
I see about 9 bugs blocking this one suggesting we are talking a hijack to
avoid 9 uploads. If this is truly the scale of the problem now, then I would
prefer we just fixed the remaining packages and moved on.
If the
On Sun, Dec 08, 2024 at 12:02:56PM +0100, Niels Thykier wrote:
> I see about 9 bugs blocking this one suggesting we are talking a hijack to
> avoid 9 uploads. If this is truly the scale of the problem now, then I would
> prefer we just fixed the remaining packages and moved on.
>
> If the problem
On Sun, Dec 08, 2024 at 12:02:56PM +0100, Niels Thykier wrote:
> I see about 9 bugs blocking this one...
this is due to an incomplete mass bug filing...
--
cheers,
Holger
⢀⣴⠾⠻⢶⣦⠀
⣾⠁⢠⠒⠀⣿⡁ holger@(debian|reproducible-builds|layer-acht).org
⢿⡄⠘⠷⠚⠋⠀ OpenPGP: B8BF54137B09D35CF026FE9D 0
Santiago Vila:
[...]
- As it has been suggested earlier in this thread: Would debhelper
maintainers be willing to "hijack" this dummy dh_buildinfo and move
it to debhelper, just for trixie?
The new debhelper would conflicts/replaces the old dh_buildinfo,
and most importantly it would *provide*
El 6/12/24 a las 10:59, Holger Levsen escribió:
On Fri, Dec 06, 2024 at 01:10:50AM +0100, Santiago Vila wrote:
Yann: I'm going to NMU this package tomorrow, using the patch
I posted several weeks ago plus the color changes from Guillem.
I will not make any other change.
Thanks already!
You a
On Fri, Dec 06, 2024 at 01:10:50AM +0100, Santiago Vila wrote:
> Yann: I'm going to NMU this package tomorrow, using the patch
> I posted several weeks ago plus the color changes from Guillem.
> I will not make any other change.
Thanks already!
(I'm a bit sick so a bit less active on this than I
--- /dev/null
+++ b/debian/dummy_dh_buildinfo
@@ -0,0 +1,2 @@
+#!/bin/sh
+echo "Warning: dh-buildinfo is obsolete, please remove it from Build-Depends"
Perhaps using instead the following, would give a bit more visibility
to the warning:
,--- dh_buildinfo ---
#!/bin/sh
PROGNAME=dh_buildinfo
.
Hi!
On Thu, 2024-11-28 at 01:11:05 +0100, Santiago Vila wrote:
> The attached patch (which I've tried it to be as minimal as possible)
> would make dh_buildinfo a no-op, as discussed in this thread.
>
> This would remove its undesired effects. Most notably, the ones related to
> reproducibility p
Sorry, I forgot the patch. Here it is.--- /dev/null
+++ b/debian/dummy_dh_buildinfo
@@ -0,0 +1,2 @@
+#!/bin/sh
+echo "Warning: dh-buildinfo is obsolete, please remove it from Build-Depends"
diff --git a/debian/rules b/debian/rules
index 867e436..1a818d9 100755
--- a/debian/rules
+++ b/debian/rules
tags 1068809 patch
thanks
Hello Yann.
The attached patch (which I've tried it to be as minimal as possible)
would make dh_buildinfo a no-op, as discussed in this thread.
This would remove its undesired effects. Most notably, the ones related to
reproducibility pointed out by Holger, where the s
Package: dh-buildinfo
Version: 0.11+nmu3
X-Debbugs-Cc: hol...@debian.org
Hi,
dh-buildinfo much predates the reproducible builds effort and the
.buildinfo file and probably laid ground to it. I am now raising the
question whether it is time to get rid of dh-buildinfo in Debian.
Essentially I am a
28 matches
Mail list logo
