On Tue, Jul 29, 2008 at 02:29:18PM -0700, Ivan Kohler wrote: > > Ok; apparently I misread the control file.
> > Build-Depends: [...] libxcrypt-dev (>= 2.4), libxcrypt-dev (< 3.0) > > Apparently, my question was meant to be: why was a package uploaded to > > unstable that build-depends on a version of libxcrypt that's only in > > testing (since libxcrypt-dev 3.0-2 was uploaded over a month before your > > libpam-unix2 upload)? > Because that's the version it needs to be functional. libpam-unix2 2.4 > needs libxcrypt before 3.0. It doesn't work with libxcrypt 3.0. > > I'm not seeing how you expected this to work, so I'm > > not sure what to recommend as a way out of this mess. > I expected (wrongly, obviously) it would pick up the build dependency > and build against the correct packages... Packages uploaded to unstable have to be buildable in unstable. > > > To fix the libxcrypt build problem in unstable, I'll need to revert to > > > the previous version. > > Why can't you *fix* the bug? It's a trivial build failure to fix - just > > stop building with -Werror. ... > > > 3.0 currently in unstable is unsuitable for release. > > > > For reasons other than the build failure? > Yes. libpam-unix2 needs the previous version to build and work > correctly. > > That is certainly not evident from the BTS. > http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=487487 There's nothing in bug #487487 that explains why libpam-unix2 can't use the newer version of libxcrypt. I had to figure this out for myself by downloading the libpam-unix2 2.4.1 package, to see that it uses a function from libxcrypt1 that's no longer present in libxcrypt2. > > If the build failure is the only reason, I don't see why you > > wouldn't just fix it. > The libxcrypt build failure is not really relevant. It could have built > fine and there would still be the same exact problem. Which problem? The problems I can see are: - libpam-unix2 2.5.0 was broken, because it was built against the old version of libxcrypt which it's not compatible with - libxcrypt is failing to build - libpam-unix2 1:2.4.1-1 is failing to build because it has a versioned build-dependency on a previous version of libxcrypt >From what I see, fixing libxcrypt so that it builds would have also addressed the first problem because libpam-unix2 2.5.0 could have been rebuilt against the new libxcrypt; but now you've uploded an older version of libpam-unix2 which introduces a new incompatibility, so you would have to both fix libxcrypt, and upload libpam-unix 2.5.0 again. I still think that's the best option, unless there's some *other* undocumented reason why libxcrypt2 is unsuitable for release. I think it's the best option because it avoids epoching a library, and because it would continue to use the libpam-unix2 2.5.0 package which, aside from not being able to do password changing at present, appears to have at least received some testing. > > > How do you suggest I revert to libxcrypt 2.4 to fix the build problems > > > in unstable *without* using a library epoch? > > I don't. > Okay, so you are confirming that the library epoch, distasteful though > it may be, is still the best/correct way to fix the problem. I will > prepare and upload corrected packages as per my original suggestion: > - libxcrypt version 1:2.4-2 (no changes from 2.4-2 currently in > testing) > - libpam-unix2 1:2.4.1-2 version of libpam-unix2 (no changes except to > update the build-dep) The problem with this is that it brings in a "new" upstream version of libpam-unix2, 2.4.1, which has before now not been in unstable or testing. That should not normally qualify for a freeze exception, AFAICS; I'll let someone else on the release team make the decision whether it should get that freeze exception, but I believe the alternate approach I outlined above allows for better QA by comparison. -- Steve Langasek Give me a lever long enough and a Free OS Debian Developer to set it on, and I can move the world. Ubuntu Developer http://www.debian.org/ [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
