Bug#474293: glibc: Add udeb: lines in shlibs files to improve udeb dependencies
On Fri, Apr 04, 2008 at 09:43:18PM +0200, Frans Pop wrote:
> Package: glibc
> Version: 2.7-10
> Severity: wishlist
> Tags: d-i patch
>
> For Etch we fixed debhelper and most library packages that provide udebs to
> improve the dependencies generated for udebs, but we skipped glibc then as
> it's less important when the installer is running (as libc is always
> included in the D-I initrds anyway and thus pulled in at build time).
>
> However, it would be great to have this fixed before Lenny as it will help
> with the implementation of britney support for udebs.
>
> The attached patch will add udeb: lines in the various libc packages, for
> example for libc6:
> udeb: ld-linux 2 libc6-udeb (>= 2.7-1)
> udeb: libm 6 libc6-udeb (>= 2.7-1)
> udeb: libdl 2 libc6-udeb (>= 2.7-1)
> udeb: libresolv 2 libc6-udeb (>= 2.7-1)
> udeb: libc 6 libc6-udeb (>= 2.7-1)
> udeb: libutil 1 libc6-udeb (>= 2.7-1)
> udeb: libcrypt 1 libc6-udeb (>= 2.7-1)
> udeb: librt 1 libc6-udeb (>= 2.7-1)
> udeb: libpthread 0 libc6-udeb (>= 2.7-1)
> udeb: libnss_dns 2 libnss-dns-udeb (>= 2.7-1)
> udeb: libnss_files 2 libnss-files-udeb (>= 2.7-1)
>
> Applying the patch should be safe and there are no transition issues.
> Possibly the change should be checked with Release Masters, but IMO it's
> not a problem to implement this at this stage of the release of Lenny.
>
> After glibc has been uploaded with this patch, I plan to request binNMUs for
> all D-I packages that depend on libc to get their dependencies fixed.
>
> Example of the effect of the patch
> ----------------------------------
> fdisk-udeb_2.13.1-3_i386.udeb currently has:
> Depends: libc6 (>= 2.7-1)
> when built against glibc with this patch this becomes:
> Depends: libc6-udeb (>= 2.7-1)
>
> Comments
> --------
> We are aware the patch is a bit of a hack and the list of libs in the helper
> script will require some maintenance. We have discussed whether this could
> be implemented in debhelper instead, but this solution was preferred:
> http://lists.debian.org/debian-boot/2008/02/msg00336.html
>
> However, if you see alternative solutions, I'd be more than willing to
> discuss them and help develop/test them.
>
I have just checked-in this patch. For the future, I wonder while those
too small udeb are separated from the main udeb. They are really small
compared to the main udeb file.
--
.''`. Aurelien Jarno | GPG: 1024D/F1BCDB73
: :' : Debian developer | Electrical Engineer
`. `' aurel32@debian.org | aurelien@aurel32.net
`- people.debian.org/~aurel32 | www.aurel32.net
Reply to: