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

Bug#247507: marked as done (gcc-3.3: No way to get source-version from binary package version.)



Your message dated Sun, 11 Dec 2005 13:02:44 +0100
with message-id <17308.5476.531359.184910@gargle.gargle.HOWL>
and subject line No way to get source-version from binary package version
has caused the attached Bug report to be marked as done.

This means that you claim that the problem has been dealt with.
If this is not the case it is now your responsibility to reopen the
Bug report if necessary, and/or fix the problem forthwith.

(NB: If you are a system administrator and have no idea what I am
talking about this indicates a serious mail system misconfiguration
somewhere.  Please contact me immediately.)

Debian bug tracking system administrator
(administrator, Debian Bugs database)

--------------------------------------
Received: (at submit) by bugs.debian.org; 5 May 2004 15:01:26 +0000
>From ametzler@logic.univie.ac.at Wed May 05 08:01:26 2004
Return-path: <ametzler@logic.univie.ac.at>
Received: from server.logic.univie.ac.at [131.130.190.41] ([mE9vDf3uxF4vepgOWLGBzTrkmW8VFzcW])
	by spohr.debian.org with esmtp (Exim 3.35 1 (Debian))
	id 1BLNtm-0000jw-00; Wed, 05 May 2004 08:01:26 -0700
Received: from balrog.logic.univie.ac.at ([131.130.190.58] ident=[aZ1yiyMmJIoucegqGXylVhey1iP+WAHp])
	by server.logic.univie.ac.at with esmtp (Exim 4.32)
	id 1BLNtk-0002nk-HP; Wed, 05 May 2004 17:01:24 +0200
Received: from ametzler by balrog.logic.univie.ac.at with local (Exim 4.32)
	id 1BLNti-00058m-BD; Wed, 05 May 2004 17:01:22 +0200
Date: Wed, 5 May 2004 17:01:21 +0200
From: Andreas Metzler <ametzler@logic.univie.ac.at>
To: Debian Bug Tracking System <submit@bugs.debian.org>
Subject: gcc-3.3: No way to get source-version from binary package version.
Message-ID: <20040505150121.GA19587@balrog.logic.univie.ac.at>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
X-Reportbug-Version: 1.50
X-Archive: encrypt
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.5.1+cvs20040105i
Sender: Andreas Metzler <ametzler@logic.univie.ac.at>
Delivered-To: submit@bugs.debian.org
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 2.60-bugs.debian.org_2004_03_25 
	(1.212-2003-09-23-exp) on spohr.debian.org
X-Spam-Status: No, hits=-7.0 required=4.0 tests=BAYES_00,HAS_PACKAGE 
	autolearn=no version=2.60-bugs.debian.org_2004_03_25
X-Spam-Level: 
X-CrossAssassin-Score: 1

Package: gcc-3.3
Version: N/A; reported 2004-05-05
Severity: normal

When debugging autobuilds it is quite intersting which version of gcc
was used, which is why the autobuilders include e.g. this in the
build-log:

| Checking correctness of source dependencies...
| Toolchain package versions: libc6-dev_2.3.2.ds1-11 linux-kernel-headers_2.5.999-test7-bk-15 gcc-3.3_1:3.3.3-2 g++-3.3_1:3.3.3-2 binutils_2.14.90.0.7-6 libstdc++5_1:3.3.3-2 libstdc++5-3.3-dev_1:3.3.3-2

The problem is that this is information is next to useless because gcc
uses different, unrelated version numbers for source and binary
packages. There is no easy way to find out which source version
corresponds to "gcc-3.3_1:3.3.3-2".

I actually needed this information and the way I solved it was
painful as possible: I guessed, downloaded the respective diff from
snapshot.debian.net, searched it for "1:3.3.3" and found that the
version is defined in debian/rules.parameters. Because my initial
guess was quite well I only needed to download two (2.5MB) diffs until
I had the correct one. :-(

I am not familiar enough with gcc to really suggest a solution, but
I'd be surpised if there was a better one than simply documenting the
mangled versions in debian/changelog or shipping a conversion table in
/usr/share/doc/
             cu andreas

-- System Information
Debian Release: 3.0
Architecture: i386
Kernel: Linux balrog 2.4.26-1-k7 #3 Sun Apr 18 21:43:29 EST 2004 i686
Locale: LANG=de_AT, LC_CTYPE=de_AT

---------------------------------------
Received: (at 247507-done) by bugs.debian.org; 11 Dec 2005 12:02:47 +0000
>From doko@cs.tu-berlin.de Sun Dec 11 04:02:47 2005
Return-path: <doko@cs.tu-berlin.de>
Received: from mail.cs.tu-berlin.de ([130.149.17.13] ident=root)
	by spohr.debian.org with esmtp (Exim 4.50)
	id 1ElPuh-0001IJ-Gw
	for 247507-done@bugs.debian.org; Sun, 11 Dec 2005 04:02:47 -0800
Received: from mailhost.cs.tu-berlin.de (postfix@mail.cs.tu-berlin.de [130.149.17.13])
	by mail.cs.tu-berlin.de (8.9.3p2/8.9.3) with ESMTP id NAA20092
	for <247507-done@bugs.debian.org>; Sun, 11 Dec 2005 13:02:45 +0100 (MET)
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1])
	by mailhost.cs.tu-berlin.de (Postfix) with ESMTP id 40971F2CC
	for <247507-done@bugs.debian.org>; Sun, 11 Dec 2005 13:02:45 +0100 (MET)
Received: from mailhost.cs.tu-berlin.de ([127.0.0.1])
 by localhost (bueno [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10224) with ESMTP
 id 10775-10 for <247507-done@bugs.debian.org>;
 Sun, 11 Dec 2005 13:02:44 +0100 (MET) 13984
Received: from bolero.cs.tu-berlin.de (bolero.cs.tu-berlin.de [130.149.19.1])
	by mailhost.cs.tu-berlin.de (Postfix) with ESMTP
	for <247507-done@bugs.debian.org>; Sun, 11 Dec 2005 13:02:44 +0100 (MET)
Received: (from doko@localhost)
	by bolero.cs.tu-berlin.de (8.12.10+Sun/8.12.8/Submit) id jBBC2icT028505;
	Sun, 11 Dec 2005 13:02:44 +0100 (MET)
From: Matthias Klose <doko@cs.tu-berlin.de>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Message-ID: <17308.5476.531359.184910@gargle.gargle.HOWL>
Date: Sun, 11 Dec 2005 13:02:44 +0100
To: 247507-done@bugs.debian.org
Subject: Re: No way to get source-version from binary package version
X-Mailer: VM 7.17 under 21.4 (patch 17) "Jumbo Shrimp" XEmacs Lucid
X-Virus-Scanned: by amavisd-new at cs.tu-berlin.de
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 2.60-bugs.debian.org_2005_01_02 
	(1.212-2003-09-23-exp) on spohr.debian.org
X-Spam-Level: 
X-Spam-Status: No, hits=-3.0 required=4.0 tests=BAYES_00 autolearn=no 
	version=2.60-bugs.debian.org_2005_01_02

$ dpkg -s gcc | grep Source
Source: gcc-defaults (1.29)

$ dpkg -I gcj-4.1_4.1-0exp4_i386.deb |grep Source
Source: gcc-4.1 (4.1ds4-0exp4)



Reply to: