FAQ Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read
» Video Reviews

» Linux Archive

Linux-archive is a website aiming to archive linux email lists and to make them easily accessible for linux users/developers.


» Sponsor

» Partners

» Sponsor

Go Back   Linux Archive > ArchLinux > ArchLinux Development

 
 
LinkBack Thread Tools
 
Old 12-06-2009, 10:08 PM
Eric Bélanger
 
Default Punishment needed for not building in a chroot

On Sun, Dec 6, 2009 at 5:53 PM, Allan McRae <allan@archlinux.org> wrote:
> Hi,
>
> We have been through this many times... *you should always build in a clean
> chroot. *But there are continuously bugs about packages linking to non-deps.
> *We should never have such bugs.
>
> e.g. (FS#17409)
>
>> readelf -d /usr/bin/mpd
> ...
> 0x00000001 (NEEDED) * * * * * * * * * * Shared library: [libjack.so.0]
> ...
>
>> pactree -u mpd | sort
> ...
> gmp
> imlib2
> kbproto
> kernel-headers
> ...
>
> How did that get to linking to jack without jack being in its dependency
> tree? *Poor packaging...
>
> The tools are very simple to use and are described in the wiki
> (http://wiki.archlinux.org/index.php/DeveloperWiki:Building_in_a_Clean_Chroot).
> *There is _no_ excuse not to use them. *The are minor changes needed for
> doing i686 builds on x86_64 and vise versa, but there are plenty of us doing
> that so help is available. *Ask for help if needed.

Agree. What's more frustrating is that these "missing" dependency are
detected by namcap:

$ namcap /var/cache/pacman/pkg/mpd-0.15.6-1-i686.pkg.tar.gz
mpd E: Dependency detected and not included
(jack-audio-connection-kit) from files ['usr/bin/mpd']

so not only a clean chroot is not being used, but namcap is also not
used as well.

>
> So, we need a creative punishment for those that causes bugs by not building
> in a clean chroot. *It is too early in the morning for me to be creative so
> I am struggling to come up with ideas besides beatings and removal of commit
> privileges. *Any better ideas?
>
> Allan
>
>
 
Old 12-06-2009, 10:10 PM
Giovanni Scafora
 
Default Punishment needed for not building in a chroot

2009/12/6, Allan McRae <allan@archlinux.org>:
> So, we need a creative punishment for those that causes bugs by not
> building in a clean chroot. It is too early in the morning for me to be
> creative so I am struggling to come up with ideas besides beatings and
> removal of commit privileges. Any better ideas?

I noticed that mpd packages have been built by Ionut (for x86_64) and
Andrea (for i686)
I know, and I'm sure, that Ionut always use a clean chroot (I always
use a clean chroot too).
Andrea, do you use a clean chroot for building your i686 packages?


--
Arch Linux Developer
http://www.archlinux.org
http://www.archlinux.it
 
Old 12-06-2009, 10:19 PM
Daenyth Blank
 
Default Punishment needed for not building in a chroot

On Sun, Dec 6, 2009 at 17:53, Allan McRae <allan@archlinux.org> wrote:
> *There is _no_ excuse not to use them.

I don't have enough hard drive space to create a build chroot. That
being said, I try to use namcap and also try to resolve any bug
reports within the same day it's assigned. Most of the time I don't
get any issues.
 
Old 12-06-2009, 10:26 PM
Andrea Scarpino
 
Default Punishment needed for not building in a chroot

On 07/12/2009, Giovanni Scafora <giovanni@archlinux.org> wrote:
> 2009/12/6, Allan McRae <allan@archlinux.org>:
>> So, we need a creative punishment for those that causes bugs by not
>> building in a clean chroot. It is too early in the morning for me to be
>> creative so I am struggling to come up with ideas besides beatings and
>> removal of commit privileges. Any better ideas?
>
> I noticed that mpd packages have been built by Ionut (for x86_64) and
> Andrea (for i686)
> I know, and I'm sure, that Ionut always use a clean chroot (I always
> use a clean chroot too).
> Andrea, do you use a clean chroot for building your i686 packages?
I ever use a clean chroot to build packages, you can trust or untrust
me for this.
You can see how much bugs like this was assigned to me in the last
months. I think none.
I updated to kernel 2.6.32 manually and without aufs2, so I built mpd
in my system, but I am sure I used namcap as ever I do.
I don't understand how this happened, but the only explanation is that
I was distracted and I am sorry for this.
Don't start a flame against me cause I think I am one of the few
people which ever use ours development tools.

Regards

--
Andrea `bash` Scarpino
Arch Linux Developer
 
Old 12-06-2009, 10:35 PM
Giovanni Scafora
 
Default Punishment needed for not building in a chroot

2009/12/6, Andrea Scarpino <andrea@archlinux.org>:
> Don't start a flame against me cause I think I am one of the few
> people which ever use ours development tools.

Please Andrea, don't get me wrong, this is not a flame against you.
I agree with Allan, all of us must always use ours development tools
and we must building in a clean chroot.


--
Arch Linux Developer
http://www.archlinux.org
http://www.archlinux.it
 
Old 12-06-2009, 10:41 PM
Andrea Scarpino
 
Default Punishment needed for not building in a chroot

2009/12/7 Giovanni Scafora <giovanni@archlinux.org>:
> I agree with Allan, all of us must always use ours development tools
> and we must building in a clean chroot.
I also am agree and I am peeved as you when I read avoidable (or
stupid) bug reports.

--
Andrea `bash` Scarpino
Arch Linux Developer
 
Old 12-06-2009, 10:41 PM
Allan McRae
 
Default Punishment needed for not building in a chroot

Andrea Scarpino wrote:

Don't start a flame against me cause I think I am one of the few
people which ever use ours development tools.


This was not directed at you only, which is why I never named you in the
original email. You just happened to be the latest example of many...


Allan
 
Old 12-06-2009, 11:07 PM
Paul Mattal
 
Default Punishment needed for not building in a chroot

Allan McRae wrote:
The tools are very simple to use and are described in the wiki
(http://wiki.archlinux.org/index.php/DeveloperWiki:Building_in_a_Clean_Chroot).
There is _no_ excuse not to use them. The are minor changes needed for
doing i686 builds on x86_64 and vise versa, but there are plenty of us
doing that so help is available. Ask for help if needed.


Is there some obstacle to integrating it further with makepkg? I think
everyone will use it when it's as easy to use as makepkg. It doesn't
seem like this should be unattainable.


It would be great to be able to do a make_arch_chroots and have it make
chroots for both architectures and then do a makepkg -c or something, to
tell it to make in the chroot.


- P
 
Old 12-06-2009, 11:15 PM
Allan McRae
 
Default Punishment needed for not building in a chroot

Paul Mattal wrote:

Allan McRae wrote:
The tools are very simple to use and are described in the wiki
(http://wiki.archlinux.org/index.php/DeveloperWiki:Building_in_a_Clean_Chroot).
There is _no_ excuse not to use them. The are minor changes needed
for doing i686 builds on x86_64 and vise versa, but there are plenty
of us doing that so help is available. Ask for help if needed.


Is there some obstacle to integrating it further with makepkg? I think
everyone will use it when it's as easy to use as makepkg. It doesn't
seem like this should be unattainable.


It would be great to be able to do a make_arch_chroots and have it make
chroots for both architectures and then do a makepkg -c or something, to
tell it to make in the chroot.


It is as simple as mkarchroot to make the chroot and makechrootpkg to
build the package (providing the path to the chroot as an arguement).


Making a chroot for the opposite architecture is slightly more
difficult, but I can provide patches if needed.


Allan
 
Old 12-06-2009, 11:18 PM
Allan McRae
 
Default Punishment needed for not building in a chroot

Daenyth Blank wrote:

On Sun, Dec 6, 2009 at 17:53, Allan McRae <allan@archlinux.org> wrote:

There is _no_ excuse not to use them.


I don't have enough hard drive space to create a build chroot. That
being said, I try to use namcap and also try to resolve any bug
reports within the same day it's assigned. Most of the time I don't
get any issues.


Seriously? A chroot takes ~600MB. At build time, even for the most dep
heavy application, I doubt you will go much beyond 1GB plus space for
the build files. Say 1.5GB for most packages.


How do you build packages against [(community-)testing] or not
[testing] as required? Or do you not help in the rebuilds for library
soname bumps?

I am very much of the opinion that if you can not build a package in a
clean chroot, then you should not build the package at all. Fixing a
bug quickly is no excuse for making the bug in the first place.


Allan
 

Thread Tools




All times are GMT. The time now is 05:13 AM.

VBulletin, Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Content Relevant URLs by vBSEO ©2007, Crawlability, Inc.
Copyright ©2007 - 2008, www.linux-archive.org