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 > Debian > Debian Development

 
 
LinkBack Thread Tools
 
Old 01-02-2008, 07:17 PM
Raphael Geissert
 
Default List of packages which should probably be Architectu all

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1


I'll consider your message as sent (won't verify timestamps) before I
clarified the situation both by mail and on IRC.

Cyril Brulebois wrote:
>
> Maybe there's rather a bug in your process. Instead of speaking of
> “plenty of greps”, you might want to expose the code / algorithm you
> used.
>

Parts of it are pretty ugly (and the Packages-fetching part isn't there),
but I'm attaching it anyway.

Cheers,
- --
Atomo64 - Raphael

Please avoid sending me Word, PowerPoint or Excel attachments.
See http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/no-word-attachments.html
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.6 (GNU/Linux)

iD8DBQFHe/FJYy49rUbZzloRAnsOAJ9vsqqQ3tVJW6mant4W4vNOn0R/IACePp+z
gd3VgRJ0FeUZEqDPbZl2ohI=
=va4z
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
 
Old 01-02-2008, 07:19 PM
Pierre Habouzit
 
Default List of packages which should probably be Architectu all

On Wed, Jan 02, 2008 at 08:16:21PM +0000, Cyril Brulebois wrote:
> On 02/01/2008, Pierre Habouzit wrote:
> > Though after a second thought, -dbg should probably not have empty
> > Depends line.
>
> After a third thought, I still fail to see what that has to do with
> being Architecture: all or any.

I agree. My point is, listing packages with an empty Depends: line
isn't meaningless. The total lack of data-massaging _is_ a mistake
though.

--
O Pierre Habouzit
O madcoder@debian.org
OOO http://www.madism.org
 
Old 01-02-2008, 07:19 PM
Kurt Roeckx
 
Default List of packages which should probably be Architectu all

On Wed, Jan 02, 2008 at 09:11:40PM +0100, Pierre Habouzit wrote:
> On Wed, Jan 02, 2008 at 08:04:44PM +0000, Pierre Habouzit wrote:
> > On Wed, Jan 02, 2008 at 07:58:24PM +0000, Raphael Geissert wrote:
> > > Russ Allbery <rra@debian.org>
> > > libgss-dbg (U)
> > > shishi-dbg (U)
> >
> > rriiiight...
>
> Though after a second thought, -dbg should probably not have empty
> Depends line.

It should even have a "=" dependency on the binary package that contains
the binaries.


Kurt


--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-REQUEST@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org
 
Old 01-02-2008, 07:20 PM
Raphael Geissert
 
Default List of packages which should probably be Architectu all

Cyril Brulebois wrote:

> On 02/01/2008, Pierre Habouzit wrote:
>> Though after a second thought, -dbg should probably not have empty
>> Depends line.
>
> After a third thought, I still fail to see what that has to do with
> being Architecture: all or any.
>

Quoting my self (first message):
> This is usually bug either because of a missing Depends or because the
> package should be Architecture: all.

Cheers,
--
Atomo64 - Raphael

Please avoid sending me Word, PowerPoint or Excel attachments.
See http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/no-word-attachments.html


--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-REQUEST@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org
 
Old 01-02-2008, 07:39 PM
Aurelien Jarno
 
Default List of packages which should probably be Architectu all

Raphael Geissert a crit :
> Cyril Brulebois wrote:
>
>> On 02/01/2008, Pierre Habouzit wrote:
>>> Though after a second thought, -dbg should probably not have empty
>>> Depends line.
>> After a third thought, I still fail to see what that has to do with
>> being Architecture: all or any.
>>
>
> Quoting my self (first message):
>> This is usually bug either because of a missing Depends or because the
>> package should be Architecture: all.

I fail to see why. Imagine for example a -dev package providing only .h
files, but depending on the architecture. It has to be Architecture: any
and does not need to Depends on a package.

You really have to look at the contents of the package and verify it
does not change between architecture.

--
.'`. Aurelien Jarno | GPG: 1024D/F1BCDB73
: :' : Debian developer | Electrical Engineer
`. `' aurel32@debian.org | aurelien@aurel32.net
`- people.debian.org/~aurel32 | www.aurel32.net


--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-REQUEST@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org
 
Old 01-02-2008, 07:39 PM
Russ Allbery
 
Default List of packages which should probably be Architectu all

Pierre Habouzit <madcoder@debian.org> writes:
> On Wed, Jan 02, 2008 at 08:04:44PM +0000, Pierre Habouzit wrote:
>> On Wed, Jan 02, 2008 at 07:58:24PM +0000, Raphael Geissert wrote:

>>> Russ Allbery <rra@debian.org>
>>> libgss-dbg (U)
>>> shishi-dbg (U)

>> rriiiight...

> Though after a second thought, -dbg should probably not have empty
> Depends line.

Indeed. Fixed in CVS, and I'll file a wishlist lintian bug to remind me
or someone to write a check at some point.

--
Russ Allbery (rra@debian.org) <http://www.eyrie.org/~eagle/>


--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-REQUEST@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org
 
Old 01-02-2008, 07:44 PM
Russ Allbery
 
Default List of packages which should probably be Architectu all

Hubert Chathi <uhoreg@debian.org> writes:

> Maybe you want to make this into a lintian test?

The reason not to do a general lintian test is exactly...

> This package only contains data files (makefile snippets, shell scripts,
> etc.), but the contents of the data files vary depending on what
> architecture it was built on, since it needs to control building for the
> right environment.

...that. It's very hard for lintian to rule out false positives here.
Other examples include header files with architecture-specific defines or
data types.

lintian does already have a few checks in this area for specific types of
packages. Another check that would generally be valid would be to flag
any package that only installs files in /usr/share but is arch: any.

--
Russ Allbery (rra@debian.org) <http://www.eyrie.org/~eagle/>


--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-REQUEST@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org
 
Old 01-02-2008, 07:49 PM
Colin Watson
 
Default List of packages which should probably be Architectu all

On Wed, Jan 02, 2008 at 03:06:21PM -0500, Hubert Chathi wrote:
> On Wed, 02 Jan 2008 13:17:24 -0600, Raphael Geissert <atomo64+debian@gmail.com> said:
> > Hello all, I've written a script which tries to detect packages which
> > should be architecture all based on the fact that they don't contain a
> > Depends field. This is usually bug either because of a missing
> > Depends or because the package should be Architecture: all.
>
> Maybe you want to make this into a lintian test?

One thing I feel is worth mentioning is that it is more harmful for a
package to be mistakenly Architecture: all than mistakenly Architecture:
any. The former merely wastes some disk space, while the latter will
cause actual broken packages. While the breakage would be obvious in the
case of packages containing ELF binaries, in the case of packages like
os-prober that include different scripts depending on the build
architecture, the breakage would be more subtle and time-consuming: it
will simply fail to detect things that should have been detected.

In light of this, and that there's no straightforward way I can think of
for Lintian to detect this situation given a binary package, I feel that
a Lintian test risks prompting inexperienced maintainers to err on the
side of incaution and set an incorrect Architecture field. I appreciate
the zeal involved in cleaning up those packages which are any when they
should be all, but is a Lintian test for this worth the potential
breakage?

Cheers,

--
Colin Watson [cjwatson@debian.org]


--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-REQUEST@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org
 
Old 01-02-2008, 07:52 PM
Raphael Geissert
 
Default List of packages which should probably be Architectu all

Aurelien Jarno wrote:
>
> I fail to see why. Imagine for example a -dev package providing only .h
> files, but depending on the architecture. It has to be Architecture: any
> and does not need to Depends on a package.

I know I'm hidding behind my 'the results may contain many false positives'
statement but I'm really aware there are some exceptions (like the one you
mentioned or others like kdepim-dbg, as stated by Sune Vuorela, which
contain the symbols of several binaries which are distributed in several
binary packages).

>
> You really have to look at the contents of the package and verify it
> does not change between architecture.
>

I'll try to do it when I have time and after the archive wide lintian check
(on amd64 binary packages only) I talked about in #-qa

Cheers,
Raphael Geissert



--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-REQUEST@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org
 
Old 01-02-2008, 07:58 PM
Cyril Brulebois
 
Default List of packages which should probably be Architectu all

On 02/01/2008, Colin Watson wrote:
> While the breakage would be obvious in the case of packages containing
> ELF binaries, […]

Not necessarily, one could remember of RC bugs opened for some months
due to arch: all packages containing shared objects, and its maintainer
wondering what was happening on 64-bit architectures, where 32-bit
shared objects were (unsuccessfully) tried to be used.

--
Cyril Brulebois
 

Thread Tools




All times are GMT. The time now is 12:19 PM.

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