Re: [fis-gtm] builds with pbuilder
On Thu, 07 Feb 2013, Amul Shah wrote:
> Andreas/Yaroslav,
> Thanks to Luis, I setup a pbuilder environment and built GT.M. There
> are a few lintian warnings and some package naming oddities that I
> am unsure about. How do I grab the build log, aside from using tee?
spoiled me uses git-buildpackage (could be called with --pbuilder
option) and that generates a nice .log for me
> I say package naming oddity, because the generated deb is named
> fis-gtm-6.0-001_6.0-001-1_amd64.deb, where I expected to see a deb
> named fis-gtm_6.0-001-1_amd64.deb.
per our discussion at kitware some time ago -- we agreed to have
versioned binary package (i.e. version in the name) to signal that per
se you can't just upgrade fis-gtm to a new major.minor version to still
access previous DB -- it needs to be migrated. And that is why it is
better to be able to co-install 2 (or more) versions at the same
time. I do not remember though having -001 revision in there, and
would have expected fis-gtm-6.0_6.0-001-1_amd64.deb, but I could be
wrong.
> I can't find the lintian warnings in pbuidler's output, but I did see them in debuild's output. This is what I see in debuild:
> W: fis-gtm source: changelog-should-mention-nmu
> W: fis-gtm source: source-nmu-has-incorrect-version-number 6.0-001-1
are you listed in Maintainers/Uploaders as well (with identical name in
the last changelog entry signature)?
> W: fis-gtm-6.0-001: setuid-binary usr/lib/fis-gtm/V6.0-001_x86_64/gtmsecshr 4755 root/root
> W: fis-gtm-6.0-001: non-standard-dir-perm usr/lib/fis-gtm/V6.0-001_x86_64/gtmsecshrdir/ 0500 != 0755
> W: fis-gtm-6.0-001: setuid-binary usr/lib/fis-gtm/V6.0-001_x86_64/gtmsecshrdir/gtmsecshr 4500 root/root
> W: fis-gtm-6.0-001: executable-is-not-world-readable usr/lib/fis-gtm/V6.0-001_x86_64/gtmsecshrdir/gtmsecshr 4500
I think we had discussion on those "security" measures -- would need to
look in emails to rehears what was our conclusion ;)
> I'm not sure what nmu is.
http://wiki.debian.org/NonMaintainerUpload
> The flagged permissions for gtmsecshr are
> what we require and check for. Do I need to suppress those warnings?
probably
> These are the warnings that I see in pbuilder's output:
> dpkg-shlibdeps: warning: debian/fis-gtm-6.0-001/usr/lib/fis-gtm/V6.0-001_x86_64/plugin/libgtmcrypt.so
> contains an unresolvable reference to symbol gtm_free: it's probably
> a plugin
> dpkg-shlibdeps: warning: 6 other similar warnings have been skipped (use -v to see them all)
> dpkg-shlibdeps: warning: package could avoid a useless dependency if
and it is a plugin, so might rely on the main process to have the
namespace loaded for it.,.. so should be safe to ignore (not sure if
there is a way to suppress)
> debian/fis-gtm-6.0-001/usr/lib/fis-gtm/V6.0-001_x86_64/ftok
> debian/fis-gtm-6.0-001/usr/lib/fis-gtm/V6.0-001_x86_64/gtcm_server
> debian/fis-gtm-6.0-001/usr/lib/fis-gtm/V6.0-001_x86_64/lke
> debian/fis-gtm-6.0-001/usr/lib/fis-gtm/V6.0-001_x86_64/mumps
> debian/fis-gtm-6.0-001/usr/lib/fis-gtm/V6.0-001_x86_64/mupip debian/fis-gtm-6.0-001/usr/lib/fis-gtm/V6.0-001_x86_64/gtcm_gnp_server
> debian/fis-gtm-6.0-001/usr/lib/fis-gtm/V6.0-001_x86_64/gtcm_pkdisp
> debian/fis-gtm-6.0-001/usr/lib/fis-gtm/V6.0-001_x86_64/dse
> debian/fis-gtm-6.0-001/usr/lib/fis-gtm/V6.0-001_x86_64/libgtmshr.so
> debian/fis-gtm-6.0-001/usr/lib/fis-gtm/V6.0-001_x86_64/gtcm_shmclean debian/fis-gtm-6.0-001/usr/lib/fis-gtm/V6.0-001_x86_64/gtmsecshrdir/gtmsecshr
> debian/fis-gtm-6.0-001/usr/lib/fis-gtm/V6.0-001_x86_64/gtcm_play
> were not linked against libncurses.so.5 (they use none of the
> library's symbols)
> dpkg-shlibdeps: warning: package could avoid a useless dependency if debian/fis-gtm-6.0-001/usr/lib/fis-gtm/V6.0-001_x86_64/plugin/libgtmcrypt.so
> was not linked against libgpg-error.so.0 (it uses none of the
> library's symbols)
> gtm_free is provided by
> debian/fis-gtm-6.0-001/usr/lib/fis-gtm/V6.0-001_x86_64/libgtmshr.so.
if those statements are correct -- you might like to adjust your CMake*
files ... but that is not critical really
> Do I need to suppress this warning? I will look into whether or not
> we can avoid the dependency for libncurses and ligpg-error.
probably it is not that you need to avoid dependency -- it is just that
you are linking against them where needed and not. You might like (not
sure if tollerable ;) ) use
-DCMAKE_SHARED_LINKER_FLAGS="-Wl,--as-needed"
-DCMAKE_EXE_LINKER_FLAGS="-Wl,--as-needed"
?
> What are the next steps?
let's decide on versioning and above NMU false-positives. And I guess
Andreas' blessing ;)
--
Yaroslav O. Halchenko
http://neuro.debian.net http://www.pymvpa.org http://www.fail2ban.org
Postdoctoral Fellow, Department of Psychological and Brain Sciences
Dartmouth College, 419 Moore Hall, Hinman Box 6207, Hanover, NH 03755
Phone: +1 (603) 646-9834 Fax: +1 (603) 646-1419
WWW: http://www.linkedin.com/in/yarik
Reply to: