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

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

Cyril Brulebois <kibi@debian.org> (22/08/2011):
> Michael Prokop <mika@debian.org> (22/08/2011):
> > 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?
> Stop using basename on what's in /lib, and do that on what's under
> debian/tmp.

More to the point now that I played a bit with it:

 a) One could try moving PROCLIB's definition to the
    override_dh_auto_build target, but then one can see there's no
    libproc-*.so at this point. (This could be a variable expansion
    issue, after all…)

 b) One could try replacing it with a `basename proc/libproc-*.so`
    in the (cd … && ln …) call but there's still no libproc-*.so
    at this point.

 c) One could check it appears when override_dh_auto_build is called,
    and add the ln -s call after the .so is available under proc/, and
    profit. That should fix the issue.

 d) To confirm the difference between procps installed and missing,
    add an “exit 42” at the end of the build target, and notice the
    presence of the libproc-….so file when procps is installed.
    Fixing the difference in behaviour here might be a more elegant
    solution, but I'll leave that to the maintainer to decide.

> > 2) How can we make sure such a bug doesn't happen again
> >    (besides working towards source-only uploads :))?
> >    Bugreport against buildd.debian.org?
> Same answer as for 1).

That part still holds.


Attachment: signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Reply to: