Bug#981930: libelf1: fails to install
Hi Norbert,
On Sat, Feb 06, 2021 at 08:08:20PM +0900, Norbert Preining wrote:
> > The bug you report is actually present in -1 already.
>
> Hmmm ....
>
> > The package is not unusable. It merely cannot be coinstalled.
>
> then why on earth did I have both arch (amd64, i386) installed on my
> computer before? And in addition, downgrading to the versions in testing
> did work without a hinch.
This particular combination of architectures did work for that
combination of builds. Other combinations were already broken in -1.
> So no, sorry to say, but you are wrong. The previous -1 packages
> **were** co-installable, and that bug did not occur.
It did not affect you, but the bug was present in -1 already.
> > It doesn't really fix it, because dh-strip-nondeterminism doesn't fix it
> > yet. That's a separate bug report.
>
> Might be a bug induced by the almighty nodeteriminsim/reproducible
> groups, but it does show up here.
The bug wasn't induced by reproducible. Quite on the contrary. The bug
was induced by the usage of Multi-Arch: same! The Debian implementation
of Multi-Arch requires reproducibility even before the reproducible
people started working on it. Reproducibility just is the cure here.
> > Reverting the NMU doesn't help in any way. It's reproducibility issue.
>
> It **does**. I reverted to the version in testing without any problems.
Yes, I do see that. However, you cannot reupload those binary packages
to the archive. If you were reverting to the "working" version and
performing a build, with luck you'd still be affected. It only depends
on when the builds are performed and whether their timing is close
enough. The -1 builds were lucky for your particular combination.
> And whatever it is, if it is a reproducibility issue, I honestly don't
> give a #$#$Y(#'$ about it when it breaks the system.
It doesn't break your system. It just breaks coinstallation of libelf1.
I don't think that coinstallation issues are considered release critical
at this point, because it is not documented in policy. A sad state of
affairs, I know.
> Reproducibility is not the highest aim we are targetting, it is just a
> tool.
Exactly.
> If it is broken, then dump it and ignore it, who cares (besides
> some former Debian Majesty).
Reproducibility isn't the thing that is broken here. Multi-Arch is. The
"dump it" solution would have been removing Multi-Arch from libelf1.
That "fix" would have caused apt to remove a lot of packages from your
system. I don't think you'd be any happier.
Please don't blame the reproducible people for any of this. They're the
cure, not the problem.
Helmut
Reply to: