Waiting for SCons 2.0: rebuild test

06-04-2010, 02:30 PM

Hello,

SCons developers are close to release new major release of SCons, which
started to deprecate some obsolete function and dropped support for
Python code older than 2.4. Full release notes can be found here:
http://sourceforge.net/projects/scons/files/scons/2.0.0.beta.20100531/RELEASE.txt/view

SCons unittest is very well designed, and there should not be any major
breakages, but risk of backward incompatible changes could affect some
Debian packages which does not see updates from upstreams so often.

So, I rebuilt reverse dependencies of SCons to spot some problems, and I
published my results online. Here is a brief summary:

* 58 packages build-depending on SCons
* 53 packages built successfully (2 of them needed sourceful changes,
such as build-dependency mangling or so, but not related to SCons).
* 4 packages FTBFS:
* 1 package has temporary dependency screwup

This is a dd-list of FTBFSing packages:
Tim Abbott <tabbott@mit.edu>
sagemath

Michael Ablassmeier <abi@debian.org>
kstreamripper

William J Beksi <wjbeksi@users.sourceforge.net>
skim (U)

Zhengpeng Hou <zhengpeng-hou@ubuntu.com>
skim (U)

Steffen Joeris <steffen.joeris@skolelinux.de>
abakus

skim maintainers <jaldhar-skim@debian.org>
skim

Jaldhar H. Vyas <jaldhar@debian.org>
skim (U)

Build logs and other details can be found here:
http://people.debian.org/~dktrkranz/scons-2.0

I have already informed upstream of my rebuild tests, and I hopefully
will be given instructions on how to properly fix FTBFSes, which I will
report as important bugs against affected packages. SCons 2.0 release
should happen in June, if RT does not mind, I intend to upload 2.0 to
unstable shortafter.

Thoughts?

--

.'`.
: :' : Luca Falavigna <dktrkranz@debian.org>
`. `'
`-

06-04-2010, 05:12 PM

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA256

On 04/06/10 10:30, Luca Falavigna wrote:
> Hello,
>
> SCons developers are close to release new major release of SCons, which
> started to deprecate some obsolete function and dropped support for
> Python code older than 2.4. Full release notes can be found here:
> http://sourceforge.net/projects/scons/files/scons/2.0.0.beta.20100531/RELEASE.txt/view

Does SCons finally support SONAMES or do we still have to manually do
that? I don't see any reference to that in the release text.

- --
Saludos,
Felipe Sateler
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.10 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/

iQIcBAEBCAAGBQJMCTQPAAoJEKO6uuJAjdbPHE0QAJG6GivBUN fxO8vwD+tNdaL9
/Zeg3G7vaY0Zt4QsF7HP/eQgTEs8e4ZXcqm/OIpPIp4axoRH1gA20u8N+bltGu3t
H2wW56VjFQhg7rkYPwjmpEzcC0m9ElT/p2FdNG4A0fp15RACXycXtcAd9GeXXpVP
YqonYqP76ADDwZ07Pq4W84nUkXYfufbflKvPDLqh80WIGz+o1e pI8OYWRcoz+ahI
BbJiDHYVXaqp9ke3pwJVj0Mi88UJ48ot0Lpiftr5b1VQ5vVYxH RqnEXX2CfIzvCU
TShh9kuaaSnclE7Z801XPy/wwMKK5vh8boe6l/AJiV3CstWiCin42g9dHWp05QXA
s9jq/4VOCnue2BDxZGFEIY7R42VClVFrVYQgO8OKeL+fJMwd9doKWLM lAHvFUbFI
YpuQfnfCPhx9FN5MwVo2MGVmN5Up/s11LsGtxi60Gqmyi/HECG0MQ889JGg8w3or
BLG6yNslckPNldxlvTmu/CV0BAZB1b0JYE6/WpDe/VK1IGuhPIFMTPvccG3L+VJU
XCRegHov8DaCHwECUka1Ov74u83cqVB3awSVQreP28LW43AXac whsWIuaX+/FLR7
RS+qVRYipf8pvvt0eSS6/0G3P9Wekq7okwbr5P5OX6EhqQ8Vh2lMWtPt92d78B/c
x3emlyjtjKzcA7UbyHyy
=22T4
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-REQUEST@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org
Archive: hubc6k$3vn$1@dough.gmane.org">http://lists.debian.org/hubc6k$3vn$1@dough.gmane.org

06-04-2010, 05:44 PM

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

Il giorno Fri, 04 Jun 2010 13:12:52 -0400
Felipe Sateler <fsateler@gmail.com> ha scritto:

> Does SCons finally support SONAMES or do we still have to manually do
> that? I don't see any reference to that in the release text.

I don't think so. I remember I've seen a request on Tigris tracker, but
I can't remember its # right now.

- --
.'`.
: :' : Luca Falavigna <dktrkranz@debian.org>
`. `'
`-
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.10 (GNU/Linux)

iEYEARECAAYFAkwJO4YACgkQnXjXEYa8KlC4eACfY57+uBGmmh kOGIaDBn3zUSuh
Ws4An3SaDenP8C14mgwhlEL+RWgS4Qq4
=NPqn
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

06-04-2010, 06:37 PM

Hi,

On Fri, 2010-06-04 at 16:30 +0200, Luca Falavigna wrote:
> So, I rebuilt reverse dependencies of SCons to spot some problems, and I
> published my results online. Here is a brief summary:
>
> * 58 packages build-depending on SCons
> * 53 packages built successfully (2 of them needed sourceful changes,
> such as build-dependency mangling or so, but not related to SCons).
> * 4 packages FTBFS:
> * 1 package has temporary dependency screwup

What specifically does "temporary dependency screwup" mean?

> I have already informed upstream of my rebuild tests, and I hopefully
> will be given instructions on how to properly fix FTBFSes, which I will
> report as important bugs against affected packages. SCons 2.0 release
> should happen in June, if RT does not mind, I intend to upload 2.0 to
> unstable shortafter.

I'm assuming that this is "just" a new upstream version? i.e. once the
FTBFS packages are fixed and assuming no RC issues in scons itself
appear, there'd be no need for any explicit action from the Release Team
and SCons 2.0 would simply transition to testing once its 10 days were
up?

Regards,

Adam

--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-REQUEST@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org
Archive: 1275676646.30695.537.camel@kaa.jungle.aubergine.my-net-space.net">http://lists.debian.org/1275676646.30695.537.camel@kaa.jungle.aubergine.my-net-space.net

06-05-2010, 12:56 AM

Il giorno Fri, 04 Jun 2010 19:37:26 +0100
"Adam D. Barratt" <adam@adam-barratt.org.uk> ha scritto:

> > * 1 package has temporary dependency screwup
> What specifically does "temporary dependency screwup" mean?

http://people.debian.org/~dktrkranz/scons-2.0/depwait/gtkrsync_1.0.4-sid-i386-20100604-075618.22.log
gtkrsync requires some build-dependencies conflicting each other. I
didn't spend a lot of time on this specific issue, so I'm not able to
say where the problem is right now.

> > I have already informed upstream of my rebuild tests, and I hopefully
> > will be given instructions on how to properly fix FTBFSes, which I will
> > report as important bugs against affected packages. SCons 2.0 release
> > should happen in June, if RT does not mind, I intend to upload 2.0 to
> > unstable shortafter.
>
> I'm assuming that this is "just" a new upstream version? i.e. once the
> FTBFS packages are fixed and assuming no RC issues in scons itself
> appear, there'd be no need for any explicit action from the Release Team
> and SCons 2.0 would simply transition to testing once its 10 days were
> up?

Exactly, given that several packages build-depend on SCons, and there
could be some hidden aspects I'm not aware of, informing RT in advance
could avoid additional headache to team members

--
.'`.
: :' : Luca Falavigna <dktrkranz@debian.org>
`. `'
`-