Your message dated Sat, 04 Jun 2022 11:10:04 +0200
with message-id <0fbe05e56c699b78bd9fb9b2098d4...@debian.org>
and subject line Re: Bug#1012252: debhelper: execute_after not executed for
binary-indep build
has caused the Debian Bug report #1012252,
regarding debhelper: execute_after not executed for binary-indep build
to be marked as done.
This means that you claim that the problem has been dealt with.
If this is not the case it is now your responsibility to reopen the
Bug report if necessary, and/or fix the problem forthwith.
(NB: If you are a system administrator and have no idea what this
message is talking about, this may indicate a serious mail system
misconfiguration somewhere. Please contact ow...@bugs.debian.org
immediately.)
--
1012252: https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=1012252
Debian Bug Tracking System
Contact ow...@bugs.debian.org with problems
--- Begin Message ---
Package: debhelper
Version: 13.7.1
Severity: Serious
Justification: FTBFS
Control: block 1012022 by -1
fenics-basix 0.4.2-1exp1 is currently failing to build in a
binary-indep build, see
https://buildd.debian.org/status/logs.php?pkg=fenics-basix&arch=all
The problem occurs when building docs in an
execute_before_dh_install-indep rule. The doc build (via sphinx)
expects the basix python module to have been built. The rules file is
available at
https://tracker.debian.org/media/packages/f/fenics-basix/rules-0.4.2-1exp1
The python module build is supposed to have been performed already in
an execute_after_dh_auto_install rule (after dh_auto_install has put
the libbasix.so shared library in place).
We can see in the binary-indep log at
https://buildd.debian.org/status/fetch.php?pkg=fenics-basix&arch=all&ver=0.4.2-1exp1&stamp=1654102080&raw=0
that libbasix.so did get built by the override_dh_auto_build rule, and
got installed by dh_auto_install -i.
But after dh_auto_install -i, the next rule that gets run is
execute_before_dh_install-indep. execute_after_dh_auto_install never
gets run.
This doesn't meet the intention of the rules file.
execute_after_dh_auto_install should be run after dh_auto_install,
with or without the -i flag, shouldn't it?
In particular, dh --no-act indicates it should have been executed:
$ dh binary-indep --no-act
dh_testroot -i
dh_prep -i
dh_installdirs -i
dh_auto_install -i
debian/rules execute_after_dh_auto_install
debian/rules execute_before_dh_install-indep
dh_install -i
dh_installdocs -i
...
So it looks like a bug in dh during actual execution, that the
execute_after_dh_auto_install rule is not getting executed.
This bug is blocking #1012022, which is Severity: serious (FTBFS),
hence I'm marking this bug Severity: serious (FTBFS) to match.
-- System Information:
Debian Release: bookworm/sid
APT prefers unstable
APT policy: (500, 'unstable'), (1, 'experimental')
Architecture: amd64 (x86_64)
Foreign Architectures: i386
Kernel: Linux 5.17.0-3-amd64 (SMP w/8 CPU threads; PREEMPT)
Locale: LANG=en_AU.UTF-8, LC_CTYPE=en_AU.UTF-8 (charmap=UTF-8),
LANGUAGE=en_AU:en
Shell: /bin/sh linked to /bin/dash
Init: systemd (via /run/systemd/system)
LSM: AppArmor: enabled
Versions of packages debhelper depends on:
ii autotools-dev 20220109.1
ii dh-autoreconf 20
ii dh-strip-nondeterminism 1.13.0-1
ii dpkg 1.21.8
ii dpkg-dev 1.21.8
ii dwz 0.14-1
ii file 1:5.41-4
ii libdebhelper-perl 13.7.1
ii libdpkg-perl 1.21.8
ii man-db 2.10.2-1
ii perl 5.34.0-4
ii po-debconf 1.0.21+nmu1
debhelper recommends no packages.
Versions of packages debhelper suggests:
ii dh-make 2.202201
-- no debconf information
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
On 2022-06-04 09:17, Niels Thykier wrote:
Control: tags -1 moreinfo
Drew Parsons:
fenics-basix 0.4.2-1exp1 is currently failing to build in a
binary-indep build, see
https://buildd.debian.org/status/logs.php?pkg=fenics-basix&arch=all
...
The bug report contains inconsistent information.
The bug report says and includes a dh --no-act that implies there is a
rule called "execute_after_dh_auto_install" in debian/rules.
However, the rules files provided via
"https://tracker.debian.org/media/packages/f/fenics-basix/rules-0.4.2-1exp1";
does *not* have that rule. Instead it has the
"execute_after_dh_auto_install-arch" rule, which would explain a lot of
the issues you are reporting.
You're absolutely right. I thought I had checked that. I had removed
the -arch locally but got confused about which release I put that change
into. I apologize for the distraction.
Drew
--- End Message ---
