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

Re: Bad interaction between pbuilder/debhelper/dpkg-buildinfo/dpkg-genchanges and dak on security-master

Sorry for the fail on FTP-masters email address (which also got the mail
bounced from alioth). Replying to keep threading consistent but quoting the
whole mail below).

On Mon, 2017-07-03 at 14:49 +0200, Yves-Alexis Perez wrote:
> Hi,
> I recently had a problem with an upload to the archive, likely due to bad
> interaction between the tooling I use to build packages and the archive
> manager.
> I usually build my packages using pbuilder, with SOURCE_ONLY_CHANGES=yes in
> .pbuilderrc, so pbuilder will ask to generate a _source.changes along with
> the
> _<arch>.changes files.
> When uploading to the archive, I do a complete (meaning arch-any + arch-all)
> build to be sure, then upload only the _source.changes so everything gets
> rebuilt by the autobuilders. It worked just fine for every upload I did to
> sid
> and experimental.
> However, I recently did that for an upload targeted at stretch-security, and
> unfortunately this caused a problem on security-master, where dak couldn't
> process the build by the amd64 autobuilder because an _amd64.buildinfo file
> was already present. It was part of my upload because it was included in the
> _source.changes file generated during the pbuilder run.
> I'm not completely sure what needs fixing here, but:
> - when doing a complete build, something will generate a _<arch>.buildinfo
> file (using dpkg-genbuildinfo), maybe its part of debhelper, I'm not sure
> what
> control I, dpkg or pbuilder have on this;
> - nothing generates a _source.buildinfo file;
> - when pbuilder generates the source changes file, it calls dpkg-genchanges
> -S
> after the build, which apparently includes any buildinfo file
> unconditionnaly
> (http://sources.debian.net/src/dpkg/1.18.24/scripts/dpkg-genchanges.pl/#L310
> )
> So few questions:
> - would it make sense to have a _source.buildinfo when building a package?
> - would it make sense to not include _<arch>.buildinfo when generating a
> _source.changes?
> - should the archive accept a _source.changes file with arch specific stuff
> inside (it's does currently, although the security archive failed later)?
> I yet didn't file any bug (to pbuidler, debhelper or dpkg-dev) because I'm
> really unsure where the problem(s) lies.
> Any help appreciated here. Please keep on CC, I'm not subscribed to debian-
> devel anymore.
> Regards,

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part

Reply to: