Re: make 4.0: archive rebuild resulted in 73 packages broken (help wanted)
Manoj Srivastava <srivasta@ieee.org> writes:
> On Tue, Apr 29 2014, Felipe Sateler wrote:
>> On Mon, 28 Apr 2014 23:01:58 -0700, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
>>
>>
>>> Felipe Sateler <fsateler@debian.org>
>>> csound (U)
>>> pulseaudio (U)
> Add to that:
>> Kari Pahula <kaol@debian.org>
>> gecode
>> Russ Allbery <rra@debian.org>
>> krb5 (U)
> Missing Build-Depends-Indep is a common pattern among the 60
> or so remaining build failures.
Yeah, I was wrong about my analysis here. I'll let Sam know. (Although
it's still a minor bug that the package doesn't B-D-I directly on
python-lxml.)
> I will cut a normal bug on dpkg, and a serious one on make, and
> make the former block the latter while we figure otu what to do. The
> options, as I see it are:
> 1) Do nothing. retain make-3.81 in Debian forever more. Needless to
> say, this is not very attractive. Pro: There is no action to
> take. Con: Almost every other distro is shipping a more recent
> make. We will continue to diverge from everyone else, and already
> the featires have diverged enough that people are having to add
> special cases in the vuild system for the Debian family of
> distributions.
> 2) Hack dpkg-buildpackage to always load B-D-I, and go back to just
> calling ./debian/rules build. This is what we used to do. Pro: it
> is pretty easy to do (umm, I would think, but I don't know the dpkg
> code base so well anymore). This has the con of the inefficiency we
> have tried to eliminate, in that all the build dependencies are
> loaded for every build, even when not strictly needed.
> 3) We state that packages must provide build-arch and build-indep for
> Jessie. This should trivially be true for every package using cdbs
> or debhelper (or, heaven forbid, my old home brew build system),
> and have dpkg-buildpackage call them without testing to see if they
> exist. We would need to do another archive rebuild with the
> modified dpkg-buildpackage to see how many packages do not
> actually not implement these targets.
Well, 2 is going back on something that we're trying to transition, and 1
seems obviously unacceptable. 3 is where we were trying to get to anyway.
I vote for just biting the bullet and trying to do 3 for jessie.
--
Russ Allbery (rra@debian.org) <http://www.eyrie.org/~eagle/>
Reply to: