Re: backport of dpkg (>= 1.17.2) and apt (>= 0.9.16.1) for build profiles
Hi,
Quoting Cyril Brulebois (2014-07-28 18:38:38)
> Johannes Schauer <j.schauer@email.de> (2014-07-28):
> > Quoting Cyril Brulebois (2014-07-28 16:40:49)
> > > > diff -Nru apt-0.9.7.9+deb7u2/debian/libapt-pkg4.12.symbols apt-0.9.7.9+deb7u3/debian/libapt-pkg4.12.symbols
> > > > --- apt-0.9.7.9+deb7u2/debian/libapt-pkg4.12.symbols 2013-03-01 10:51:21.000000000 +0000
> > > > +++ apt-0.9.7.9+deb7u3/debian/libapt-pkg4.12.symbols 2014-07-28 11:32:23.000000000 +0000
> > > > @@ -369,6 +369,7 @@
> > > > (c++)"debListParser::VersionHash()@Base" 0.8.0
> > > > (c++)"debListParser::Architecture()@Base" 0.8.0
> > > > (c++)"debListParser::ParseDepends(char const*, char const*, std::basic_string<char, std::char_traits<char>, std::allocator<char> >&, std::basic_string<char, std::char_traits<char>, std::allocator<char> >&, unsigned int&, bool const&, bool const&)@Base" 0.8.0
> > > > + (c++)"debListParser::ParseDepends(char const*, char const*, std::basic_string<char, std::char_traits<char>, std::allocator<char> >&, std::basic_string<char, std::char_traits<char>, std::allocator<char> >&, unsigned int&, bool const&, bool const&, bool const&)@Base" 0.9.7.9+deb7u2
> > >
> > > This is wrong.
> >
> > Why?
> >
> > And how would it be done "right"?
>
> Pretty sure 0.9.7.9+deb7u2 doesn't ship the symbol you pretend it does…
you are right, I wrongly updated the version when I rebased the patch from the
one prepared for backports to the current stable version of apt. But that is
trivially fixed. Is there anything else wrong with that line?
> (Ansgar told you where to look, by the way.)
Which message of Ansgar are you referring to?
> > > > diff -Nru python-apt-0.8.8.2/debian/control python-apt-0.8.8.2+deb7u1/debian/control
> > > > --- python-apt-0.8.8.2/debian/control 2013-03-13 22:25:59.000000000 +0000
> > > > +++ python-apt-0.8.8.2+deb7u1/debian/control 2014-07-28 11:46:59.000000000 +0000
> > > > @@ -10,7 +10,7 @@
> > > > apt-utils,
> > > > debhelper (>= 7.3.5),
> > > > fakeroot,
> > > > - libapt-pkg-dev (>= 0.8.11),
> > > > + libapt-pkg-dev (= 0.9.7.9+deb7u3),
> > >
> > > I'm pretty sure this a bad idea.
> > >
> > > This happened not so long ago:
> > > [12 Jun 2014] DSA-2958 apt - security update
> > >
> > > Next apt update would mean python-apt is no longer buildable in stable.
> >
> > This is correct. I am not aware of a correct way to express this dependency.
>
> Well, as usual, >= foo together with << bar?
My problem with that solution is: << than what version? Also, apt starts
shipping the proper symbol with version 0.9.16.1 and the only way to retrieve a
version before 0.9.16.1 is from snapshot.debian.org. So is a << even necessary?
If it is, then less than what version?
> I read this as “no tests have been performed”. Not quite what I'd expect for
> things as critical as a new apt in stable…
We are quite confident that apt, python-apt and dpkg itself work as expected as
those were thoroughly tested. As for their reverse dependencies:
Of the reverse dependencies of libapt-pkg4.12 only qapt uses the ParseDepends
function. But it doesnt do so for parsing source control data so there will be
no behaviour change.
Of the reverse dependencies of python-apt, ParseSrcDepends is used by none. The
rest use ParseDepends which only acts on binary packages and thus does not have
a change in functionality.
Of the reverse dependencies of libdpkg-perl only libsbuild-perl and xapt make
use of the changed deps_parse function. Because they do not pass the
reduce_profiles argument they will not be able to parse the new syntax. We did
test sbuild but we did not test xapt.
What other tests would you like me to run?
cheers, josch
Reply to: