[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Buildd vs. Cowbuilder: broken symlink in procps dev package on one architecture


Christian Hofstaedtler prepared a stable update for procps regarding
#632749 (with ACK from Craig as the procps maintainer and from Adam
from the release team - Cc-ing both of them therefore FYI).

While reviewing the package I noticed an interesting bug, causing
procps in squeeze to have an accidental hidden Build-Depend on
itself, which only influences the -dev package.

The issue turns up as follows:

| % dpkg -c libproc-dev_3.2.8-9squeeze1_amd64.deb | grep libproc.so
| lrwxrwxrwx root/root         0 2011-08-22 00:19 ./usr/lib/libproc.so -> /lib/libproc-*.so

This bug is caused by the following lines in debian/rules:

| PROCLIB = $(shell basename proc/libproc-*.so)
| [...]
| ( cd static && ln -s /lib/$(PROCLIB) libproc.so )

*But*: e.g. the amd64 binary package in the Debian squeeze
repository doesn't suffer from this problem:

| % dpkg -c libproc-dev_3.2.8-9_amd64.deb | grep libproc.so
| lrwxrwxrwx root/root         0 2010-05-04 13:26 ./usr/lib/libproc.so -> /lib/libproc-3.2.8.so

My assumption: it's because this (amd64) version has been built by
buildds. But Craig (as the maintainer) uploaded the i386 version
which was built in a clean environment without having procps

| % dpkg -c libproc-dev_3.2.8-9_i386.deb | grep libproc.so
| lrwxrwxrwx root/root         0 2010-05-04 13:44 ./usr/lib/libproc.so -> /lib/libproc-*.so


1) What's the proper way to address this issue in squeeze?
   a) Build a i386 package with broken symlink?
   b) Build whatever-arch package with working symlink?

2) How can we make sure such a bug doesn't happen again
   (besides working towards source-only uploads :))?
   Bugreport against buildd.debian.org?


Attachment: signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Reply to: