Control: tag -1 pending On Thu, 2020-09-10 at 06:59 +0200, Helmut Grohne wrote: > Source: linux > Version: 5.8.7-1 > Severity: important > User: helmutg@debian.org > Usertags: rebootstrap > > Hi, > > I'm run into a bootstrap failure caused by linux: > https://jenkins.debian.net/job/rebootstrap_hppa_gcc10/9/ > > dh_prep > > dh_prep: warning: All requested packages have been excluded (e.g. via a Build-Profile or due to architecture restrictions). > > kernel-wedge install-files 5.8.0-1 > > bash: kernel-wedge: command not found > > make[2]: Leaving directory '/tmp/buildd/linux/linux-5.8.7' > > make[2]: *** [debian/rules.real:573: install-udeb_hppa] Error 127 > > make[1]: Leaving directory '/tmp/buildd/linux/linux-5.8.7' > > make[1]: *** [debian/rules.gen:89: binary-arch_hppa] Error 2 > > make: *** [debian/rules:43: binary-arch] Error 2 > > dpkg-buildpackage: error: debian/rules binary-arch subprocess returned exit status 2 > > What we see here is that kernel-wedge is not found while cross building > linux with the stage1 profile for hppa. This seems to be a recent thing. > It used to work earlier. I'm not sure yet, how many other architectures > are affected. This is specific to hppa. It recently gained transitional metapackages with no build-profiles set, and that made the condition here true: install-udeb_$(ARCH): # Logically we should check for %-di here, but that would break test builds ifneq (,$(filter linux-image-%,$(packages_enabled))) ... endif endif # enabled > A kernel-wedge dependency is there, but it is tagged <!stage1>. That > used to be true. It should still be true; there is no reason to run kernel-wedge, and it would fail if it was installed anyway. [...] > While looking into linux' build profiles I was wondering whether we > still need stage1. linux gained a number of functional profiles > including pkg.linux.nokernel, pkg.linux.notools and pkg.linux.nosource. > Their combination does not exactly reproduce stage1, but it is close. > I'm wondering whether we can simply switch any stage1 user to using the > combination of these three and be done. I haven't tried whether this > actually works yet, but I believe it is feasible and you get the idea. I think that would be more fragile than the clearly defined stage1. Ben. -- Ben Hutchings Never put off till tomorrow what you can avoid all together.
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part