Hello Andreas, For multiarch, I decided to move the shared object and static lib into directory defined by DEB_HOST_MULTIARCH. As a result, during the dpkg_shlibdeps invoke when dh_shlibdeps is reached in the package build process, I see a lot of errors. A snippet is denoted as below: dpkg-shlibdeps: error: cannot continue due to the errors listed above Note: libraries are not searched in other binary packages that do not have any shlibs or symbols file. To help dpkg-shlibdeps find private libraries, you might need to use -l. dh_shlibdeps: dpkg-shlibdeps -Tdebian/fast.substvars debian/fast/usr/lib/fast/OpenIGTLinkClient debian/fast/usr/lib/fast/OpenIGTLinkServer returned exit code 2 dpkg-shlibdeps: error: cannot find library libFAST.so.0 needed by debian/libfast-examples/usr/lib/fast/streamImagesFromDisk (ELF format: 'elf64-x86-64' abi: '0201003e00000000'; RPATH: '/usr/lib/fast/../lib') Is the RPATH to blame? I'm not too sure what I should do and I would rather not trial and error with how long each build takes. The latest commit reflects the state of my current workspace. Maybe I should have looked into using include(GNUInstallDirs). Best Regards, Shayan Doust On 20/08/2019 20:42, Shayan Doust wrote: > Hello Andreas, > >> Yes. I'll have a look and may be I'll turn this into a d-shlibs call. >> Thank you have an example. > > Sounds good. Although for my attempt I used install command to assign > 755 permission to *.so when moved. > > I've sometimes found that maintainer consistency is fairly poor. > Although there is a policy in place it seems like sometimes maintainers > go their own ways which is fairly confusing, especially if that > particular thing is not well documented. > > I will also push a couple more patches shortly with regards to the > opencl header issue once this builds. That, and the ~rc version mangle. > >> May be we finalise this package in the next days. I'll have a look and >> might finish it if you don't mind. > > I'll still be as active as I am for the next couple of weeks, but it's > just an advanced heads up as there is uncertainty with the whole moving > out factor. > > Additionally, I am wondering how many packages to maintain before it > gets "too much". Although I guess the hard work is just the initial > packaging attempt. Apart from the whole week I was on holiday, I think > this package just took its time in terms of its size but also > understanding (from scratch) how libraries should be installed, and the > 1 hr 30 mins of build times :). > > Best Regards, > Shayan Doust > > On 20/08/2019 20:21, Andreas Tille wrote: >> Hi Shayan, >> >> On Tue, Aug 20, 2019 at 07:14:33PM +0100, Shayan Doust wrote: >>> >>> Welcome back :). >> >> :-) >> >>> I've probably checked gatb-core at least a dozen times before you sent >>> this to me. I just never checked debian/patch as I didn't think this was >>> some cmake thing :). Talked to upstream and they will take care of >>> soversion within the next release and package update, but for now I just >>> added this as a patch. >> >> Cool! >> >>>> ...In this case the dynamic lib is added but you get the idea how to >>>> add a static one from this patch... >>> >>> Thank you. This is done. >>> >>> If you have time, do you mind just checking fast package for me? There >>> are still a few things I need to do with libfast-dev as I haven't done >>> this yet. Where should *.a go? Should this go under >>> /usr/lib/<arch>-linux-gnu? >> >> Yes. I'll have a look and may be I'll turn this into a d-shlibs call. >> Thank you have an example. >> >>> I know this can be set accordingly in >>> debian/rules but I have seen *.a both in /usr/lib and >>> /usr/lib/<arch>-linux-gnu. Same for *.so. >> >> The latter is the modern (=multiarch) one. /usr/lib is just a left over >> by not so properly maintaines packages. >> >>> I also see >>> rc-version-greater-than-expected-version, presumably from how upstream >>> brands the version. Should this be ignored or can this be safely rectified? >> >> You need to use >> >> opts="uversionmangle=s/-rc/~rc/" >> >> in debian/watch and use ~rc in d/changelog. The rationale is that '~' >> sorts lower with `dpkg --compare-versions`. So if upstream is issuing a >> real release it is in correct alphabethic sequence and considered a >> higher version if you drop ~rc (or ~beta or whatever upstream might >> invent to mark a pre-release). >> >>> Additionally, productivity will start to decrease for only a few weeks >>> to a month as I prepare to move out and into university accommodation. >> >> May be we finalise this package in the next days. I'll have a look and >> might finish it if you don't mind. >> >> Thanks for your great work >> >> Andreas. >> >>> On 19/08/2019 07:39, Andreas Tille wrote: >>>> Hi Shayan, >>>> >>>> On Sun, Aug 18, 2019 at 05:53:01PM +0100, Shayan Doust wrote: >>>>> Hello, >>>>> >>>>> Please disregard the previous email entirely just to save you time from >>>>> writing, as I have finally figured things out. >>>> >>>> I'm slowly recovering from last week need to cope with some backlog. >>>> Thus saving my time is pretty welcome. ;-) >>>> >>>>> fast should contain only executable binaries which in this case are >>>>> openigt fast client and server binaries. >>>> >>>> Yes. >>>> >>>>> libfastSOVERSION should contain the shared / *.so only although grepping >>>>> libFAST.so, there is no soversion. Is this libfast0 then? >>>> >>>> Several upstreams do not know about SOVERSION and once you contact them >>>> you could try to talk about this as well. If upstream does not set a >>>> soversion we should do this. In gatb-core you can find a simple example: >>>> >>>> https://salsa.debian.org/med-team/gatb-core/blob/master/debian/patches/set_soversion.patch >>>> >>>> Yes, 0 is a good choice here and we need to bump the SOVERSION once >>>> upstream might change the ABI (which frequently happens without any >>>> notice - you see we are at version 2 in gatb-core meanwhile). >>>> >>>>> libfast-dev contains only the header files and the static library (*.a). >>>>> I realised this can be done with the ar tool. Is it sensible to traverse >>>>> the build directory and add all object files to archive to create a >>>>> libfast.a? >>>> >>>> There is no need for manual intervention with ar. CMake can do this >>>> easily. Once we have used gatb-core as an example we might stick to >>>> this one: >>>> >>>> https://salsa.debian.org/med-team/gatb-core/blob/master/debian/patches/dynamic_lib.patch >>>> >>>> In this case the dynamic lib is added but you get the idea how to >>>> add a static one from this patch. >>>> >>>>> I will now just slightly modify the existing debian/ files to >>>>> accommodate these changes. >>>>> >>>>> Additionally, I will stick to modifying fast so I will not need the >>>>> additional CL header files, so the dependency is now just opencl. I will >>>>> talk to upstream about this. >>>> >>>> If this approach will work out that sounds like a good alternative >>>> which was missing in my list. >>>> >>>>> Many thanks & hopefully this isn't an inconvenience, >>>> >>>> Definitely not. Its a pleasure to see you growing into way more >>>> complex packages. >>>> >>>> Kind regards >>>> >>>> Andreas. >>>> >>>>> Shayan Doust >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> -------- Forwarded Message -------- >>>>> Subject: Re: [MoM] Re: fast: Add further dependencies to enable chroot / >>>>> cowbuilder to build >>>>> Resent-Date: Sat, 17 Aug 2019 13:16:24 +0000 (UTC) >>>>> Resent-From: debian-med@lists.debian.org >>>>> Date: Sat, 17 Aug 2019 14:16:05 +0100 >>>>> From: Shayan Doust <hello@shayandoust.me> >>>>> To: debian-med@lists.debian.org >>>>> >>>>> Hello Andreas, >>>>> >>>>> Many thanks for taking the time to reply. >>>>> >>>>> Just a few side comments for whenever you next have the free time to >>>>> reply :). >>>>> >>>>>> I had no time to check the packaging. In any case I think if this is >>>>>> a library package we usually ship libfast-dev (with header files and >>>>>> static lib (*.a file(s) )), a dynamic library package libfastSOVERSION >>>>>> and the executable in a fast package. >>>>> >>>>> I retained the original name as the package name "fast" and not >>>>> "libfast". Maybe I should change this. Initially I was unsure as fast >>>>> stands to framework and was unsure as to this relationship with a library. >>>>> >>>>> CMake only generates FAST as a shared object / *.so. I assume this is >>>>> just what upstream wanted. Referring to deb policy 8.3, I don't see this >>>>> as mandatory. If it is, maybe I'd need to use some tool or modify cmake >>>>> to output *.a. Fast did however generate example binaries to which I >>>>> split this off into fast-examples to install under /usr/lib/fast. >>>>> >>>>> There is no soversion when doing an objdump and grepping the SONAME from >>>>> the generated *.so file. Does this therefore mean a soversion of simply >>>>> 0 or does this now reflect upstream version. I think it's simply a >>>>> mistake to simply move libFAST.so into /usr/lib as this doesn't have a >>>>> soversion and has to be a symlink instead. >>>>> >>>>> I may have picked a fairly time consuming and confusing package until I >>>>> wrap my head around how a library / "framework" should be packaged. >>>>> >>>>> Best Regards, >>>>> Shayan Doust >>>>> >>>>> On 17/08/2019 10:17, Andreas Tille wrote: >>>>>> Hi Shayan, >>>>>> >>>>>> I've found some spare minutes for a more explicit answer. This week I >>>>>> was pretty busy with real life (nursing my two grandsons is pretty much >>>>>> a full time job :-P). >>>>>> >>>>>> On Wed, Aug 14, 2019 at 04:49:00PM +0100, Shayan Doust wrote: >>>>>>> Hello, >>>>>>> >>>>>>> So I contacted upstream regarding the failed test binary generation and >>>>>>> they've acknowledged and fixed it. A query regarding test data needed >>>>>>> for autopkgtest. As you said to avoid git or any downloading tools >>>>>>> (curl, wget, ...) as a dependency, >>>>>> >>>>>> Its not a matter of trying to avoid some of these tools. Per policy a >>>>>> package needs to build on a machine that's disconnected from the >>>>>> internet. So it will just not work technically to download anything. >>>>>> Its the same with autopkgtests. So we need to provide everything we >>>>>> need either as Debian package or inside the source tree. >>>>>> >>>>>>> how can I add the test datas to >>>>>>> autopkgtest. The test data is zipped and is just over 2 GB large, so I >>>>>>> didn't think patching this in would be sensible. The test data are to be >>>>>>> downloaded from https://folk.idi.ntnu.no/smistad/FAST_Test_Data.zip >>>>>> >>>>>> I think 2GB data are to much to just move it to the debian/ dir. So the >>>>>> best idea would be to provide the test data in a separate package for >>>>>> instance fast-data (or fast-test-data / fast-examples). >>>>>> >>>>>>> Additionally, I've got another query regarding opencl. Upstream have >>>>>>> their own modified version of the CL headers. Using diff, the only >>>>>>> change they have done is add two *.hpp files into the CL header >>>>>>> directory in /usr/include. Is it sensible to ever have opencl as a >>>>>>> prerequisite / package dependency and then move over the two missing >>>>>>> files into the CL directory when the user installs the fast package or >>>>>>> should this sort of modification to external packages be avoided at all >>>>>>> costs. I assume the other way would just be to have the fast opencl >>>>>>> headers inside /usr/include/FAST and then patch all the fast headers to >>>>>>> use the fast opencl headers in the new directory. CMake also generated >>>>>>> some opencl *.cl files in a directory called "kernel" so I am not sure >>>>>>> as to what I should do with this directory and its significance to FAST. >>>>>> >>>>>> I agree that having a full copy of OpenCL just to ship two extra files >>>>>> makes no sense. I see several options to consider: >>>>>> >>>>>> 1. May be it makes sense to forward these two files to OpenCL upstream. >>>>>> In any case it might make sense to talk to fast upstream / opencl >>>>>> Debian maintainers. >>>>>> >>>>>> You proposed yourself which does not involve others and thus is a faster >>>>>> solution for the moment >>>>>> >>>>>> 2. Move these missing files inside a libfast-dev package and feed >>>>>> it into the opencl headers. I admit while this would work I have >>>>>> a bad gut feeling about this. >>>>>> >>>>>> 3. Patch the files and ship the two additional files somewhere in >>>>>> /usr/include/fast >>>>>> >>>>>> I admit I prefer option 3. as a temporaty means until may be 1. can >>>>>> be implemented. >>>>>> >>>>>>> Looks like everything else is going fine. With this being the first >>>>>>> library I've packaged I do expect some mistakes but luckily they won't >>>>>>> be replicated within the next library I package :). >>>>>> >>>>>> I had no time to check the packaging. In any case I think if this is >>>>>> a library package we usually ship libfast-dev (with header files and >>>>>> static lib (*.a file(s) )), a dynamic library package libfastSOVERSION >>>>>> and the executable in a fast package. >>>>>> >>>>>> I have no time to verify whether these hints might make sense in this >>>>>> actual case. >>>>>> >>>>>> Kind regards >>>>>> >>>>>> Andreas. >>>>>> >>>>>>> On 11/08/2019 21:49, Shayan Doust wrote: >>>>>>>> Hi Andreas, >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> I'm occupied by real life until next weekend - so my response time >>>>>>>>> is way longer than usual. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Not a worry at all & thanks for the needed information! >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> May be you can ask on debian-mentors@lists.debian.org meanwhile. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> As this is 3.0.0rc1 I will probably try out 3.0.0rc3 and then ask just >>>>>>>> in case this was some upstream issue. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Best regards, >>>>>>>> Shayan Doust >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> On 11/08/2019 21:44, Andreas Tille wrote: >>>>>>>>> Hi Shayan, >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> I'm occupied by real life until next weekend - so my response time >>>>>>>>> is way longer than usual. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> On Sun, Aug 11, 2019 at 01:25:22AM +0100, Shayan Doust wrote: >>>>>>>>>> Hello Andreas, >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> A few things changed since the previous email. I found a way of getting >>>>>>>>>> the dependencies via another chroot environment and now the package >>>>>>>>>> builds in cowbuilder with no troubles. My work routine usually goes >>>>>>>>>> along the lines of getting stuck on something for a couple of hours, >>>>>>>>>> emailing here on the mailing list then 30 mins later somehow managing to >>>>>>>>>> fix whatever issue I was stuck on :). >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> That's not very different to what happened quite frequently to me. ;-) >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> I am having some issues with moving libFAST.so. I am not sure if I >>>>>>>>>> should simply use mv or use d-shlibmove. d-shlibmove just throws an >>>>>>>>>> error with regards to dependencies not existing so if I am meant to use >>>>>>>>>> d-shlibmove, please have a look at this in fast. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> I personally like to use d-shlibmove since it prevents you from making >>>>>>>>> several mistakes in library packaging. However, since I habe no time >>>>>>>>> to provide technical help this week its fine if you find any solution. >>>>>>>>> Usually d-shlibmove turns out a bit tricky. If something is missing >>>>>>>>> you can try '--override' as for instance in the package libdisorder. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Lintian is reporting package-name-doesnt-match-sonames. I believe this >>>>>>>>>> is where I have to rename "fast" to "libFAST" for the package name. I am >>>>>>>>>> also getting shlib-without-versioned-soname and I am unsure as to how >>>>>>>>>> this is rectified. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> I usually ignore these lintian issues when its not an actual library >>>>>>>>> package. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Compilation of the test binaries fail and I am even unable to build >>>>>>>>>> these in an isolated system just using cmake so I assume this is some >>>>>>>>>> sort of an upstream bug or even an incomplete wiki page with some >>>>>>>>>> dependency not documented. I'll figure out something for this as usual. >>>>>>>>>> Luckily all other informational lintian outputs can simply be fixed by >>>>>>>>>> removing the unneeded directories like fonts. I can't think of anything >>>>>>>>>> else to write at this time of night. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> May be you can ask on debian-mentors@lists.debian.org meanwhile. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Thanks for your time & best regards, >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Good luck >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Andreas. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>> >> >> >> >> >
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature