Re: [buildd-tools-devel] testers wanted: sbuild and build-dependencies
Andres Mejia <email@example.com> writes:
> On Wed, Nov 10, 2010 at 2:57 PM, Goswin von Brederlow <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
>> Roger Leigh <email@example.com> writes:
>>> On Wed, Nov 10, 2010 at 01:00:29PM +0100, Goswin von Brederlow wrote:
>>>> Roger Leigh <firstname.lastname@example.org> writes:
>>>> > A new "aptitude" resolver has been written by Marc 'HE' Brockschmidt.
>>>> > This creates a dummy "dependency package" which is installed and
>>>> > contains Depends and Conflicts for all the appropriate Build-Depends
>>>> > and Build-Conflicts, and uses aptitude to install and remove the
>>>> > appropriate packages to satisfy them. This has been in use on our
>>>> > experimental buildds for about a year, and we now want to look towards
>>>> > making it the default. However, we need some more widespread testing
>>>> > to make sure the dependency resolving doesn't result in inconsistent
>>>> > installation of packages and hence inconsistent library dependencies
>>>> > or break building of any packages etc.
>>>> Yet another or did he take the one from pbuilder?
>>> It's new, but based upon the ideas in pbuilder.
>>> Just to mention in passing, I also wrote an additional "apt"
>>> resolver last night, based on the aptitude resolver, which works
>>> in exactly the same way. Not usable under all circumstances yet,
>>> but also available (in git only at present) for testing. The
>>> main issue with apt is getting "apt-get -yf install" to not choose
>>> to remove the dependency package as a solution! Currently looking
>>> at the possibilities here--any thoughts welcome!
>> Does that actually happen in cases where another solution would keep it?
>> There is a solution to this actually. Create a Packages, Release and
>> Release.gpg file for the pseudo package and add them as file:// url to
>> sources.list.d/. Then just apt-get install pseudo-package.
> Another solution is to create a Sources file and use the 'build-dep'
> command from apt-get or aptitude.
Can use a unsigned Sources file here? Would 'apt-get build-dep
foo=version' complain about it being unsigned? It isn't installing any
debs from it, it only gets the list of deb from it. So I guess that
should work without Release.gpg file.
>>>> This destroys the determinicity of build dependencies. So if I say
>>>> Build-Depends: lib-new-name | lib-old-name
>>>> so the package builds (for users) in both stable/testing and unstable it
>>>> is no longer given which library is used by the unstable buildds. Some
>>>> will pick lib-new-name and some, where the new lib isn't compiled yet,
>>>> lib-old-name. And so on.
>>>> I always heard determinicity was a wanted feature for the buildds.
>>> It is, and this is something to look at carefully. In the example
>>> above, this is a very real problem (which could be rectified by
>>> having stricter build-deps).
>>> The root problem here is that at any given moment in time, unstable
>>> is not in a consistent state--packages may be outdated on several
>>> architectures, and so a package build may use (and depend on)
>>> different versions in different architectures. There are several
>>> places this could be fixed:
>>> ? we could keep packages out of the archive until built on all
>>> ? we could dep-wait a package until all its deps are the same
>>> across all architectures
>> That is called testing. And for anything doing a library transition that
>> obviously won't work or migration to testing wouldn't be such big
>> problem all around.
>> Don't forget this not only happens when a package itself differs between
>> arch. This can also happen if any of the recursive depends differs. On
>> one arch lib-new-name can exist but be uninstallable while on another it
>> is installable.
>>> ? we could keep the current approach of banning alternatives
>>> entirely (but note that this does not solve the entire problem,
>>> it's still easy to get inconsistency anyway)
>>> The existing approach to determinism is not to support alternatives
>>> at all, which is clearly not ideal. While I don't think we should
>>> be encouraging the use of alternative build-deps, this is one of the
>>> most commonly reported bugs in sbuild--there are valid use cases for
>> Actually alternatives are supported. Most notably in A [i386] | B
>> [!i386]. Sbuild fixates on the first alternative that should be
>> installable. That makes it 100% perdictable to the uploader which
>> package he gets.
> This use of alternatives will fail on non-i386 machines using sbuild's
> internal build-dep resolver. It will succeed using apt or aptitude
> Here's an example for anyone willing to try. It doesn't matter if the
> architecture restrictions are there or not.
> Build-Depends: linux-headers-2.6-i386 [i386] | linux-headers [!i386]
Well, it does seem to work fine on buildds:
Build-Depends: cdbs, debhelper (>= 7), texlive-latex-base, libatlas-base-dev [!powerpc !alpha !arm !armel !sh4] | libblas-dev, liblapack-dev
Checking for already installed source dependencies...
Using default version 7.4.17
On alpha it ignores the libatlas-base-dev and installs libblas-dev as it
should. So alternatives aren't 100% ignored.