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

Re: runit not buildable, only build-dependency is arch qualified

On Fri, Aug 01, 2014 at 12:23:38AM +0100, peter green wrote:
> Debian autobuilders are currently refusing to build runit on many
> architectures (both official and unofficial) with the following
> message[1][2]

> runit build-depends on missing:
> - empty-dependency-after-parsing

> The immediate cause seems to be that runit recently removed procps from it's
> build-depends leaving the only build-dependency an arch qualified one,
> specifically.

> Build-Depends: dietlibc-dev (>> 0.28-0) [alpha amd64 arm hppa i386 ia64 mips
> mipsel powerpc ppc64 s390 sparc]

> Googling "empty-dependency-after-parsing" finds a single result which seems
> to be a patch to remove the code generating it from wanna-build along with
> some other code. [3] The patch description says that the removed
> functionality is now in dose but doesn't specifically say if the particular
> behviour on empty dependencies crossed over or not and a reply indicates
> that the patch may not actually have been commited. Comments in the code
> removed by the patch also hint that dpkg is also unhappy with this situation
> "At least as of now, empty is also an error from Dpkg::Deps, so better just
> prevent anything from building".

> So I decided to try a manual build on armhf (one of the affected
> architectures ). The package built successfully. Furthermore I don't see
> anything in policy that would forbid a package's only build dependency.

> Therefore IMO anything that fails to handle this case correctly is buggy. Do
> other people agree?

Technically correct.  OTOH, an empty build-dependency field means the
package is not using debhelper for its build, but instead has some grotesque
by-hand debian/rules file.  So this error will only ever affect packages
that are not using modern best-practice packaging.  I'm sure I could easily
find a volunteer to submit a patch switching runit to use dh(1), to make
this issue go away for you.

> if so where should wanna-build bugs be filed (since wanna-build is not
> currently in Debian)?  does anyone have a simple testcase to see if the
> assertion in the comment about Dpkg::Deps is also true?

There is a buildd.debian.org virtual package in the BTS:


Steve Langasek                   Give me a lever long enough and a Free OS
Debian Developer                   to set it on, and I can move the world.
Ubuntu Developer                                    http://www.debian.org/
slangasek@ubuntu.com                                     vorlon@debian.org

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Reply to: