Re: edos analysis for debian-installer
Hi Frans (and debian-boot), On Fri, Feb 12, 2010 at 02:28:07AM +0100, Frans Pop wrote: On Friday 12 February 2010, Ralf Treinen wrote: I have just enabled daily (from now on) runs of the edos installability analysis of debian-installer: http://edos.debian.net/edos-debcheck/installer.php For sid it makes some sense, but it's only of very limited value. Some uninstallables are always going to show up, simply because a lot of udebs are arch:all, but may not have their depends met for a specific arch as the installation method they are used in is simply not relevant for that arch. The numbers in parantheses () are for packages that have Architecture != all. Also, a lot of dependencies that do exist are not registered in the control file. Reason for that is that the dependencies are also used to order components in the main menu of the installer (they help determine the order of execution of installation steps). So the picture will always be incomplete to some extend. That is interesting. Do you mean that packages in installer contain more dependencies than in unstable? Is there any documentation where these additional dependencies come from (by hand from the mainatiner, or a tool), and how they are used? As far as I'm concerned it's up to you whether to keep generating and publish the info or not, but I do hope nobody will be filing BRs from it [2]. I'm not sure if I'll ever think of checking back :-P It takes almost zero ressources compared to the complete debian distributions, so we might as well keep it running. [2] Maybe add some kind of disclaimer? Yes, good idea. Did that, and also for the unstable distribution. However, there was in the past never a problem with people reporting bugs based on the edos-debcheck runs. Cheers -Ralf. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-boot-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/20100214191903.gc3...@free.fr
Re: edos analysis for debian-installer
On Sunday 14 February 2010, Ralf Treinen wrote: That is interesting. Do you mean that packages in installer contain more dependencies than in unstable? No, they are not explicit anywhere. Is there any documentation where these additional dependencies come from (by hand from the mainatiner, or a tool), and how they are used? What I'm talking about is mostly dependencies of the type will only work correctly with udeb X version Y and not with earlier versions. They're not registered as dependencies as doing so would cause things to break functionally. They are ensured mostly by our release management. Sometimes they will be documented in the changelog for a package as Requires X (=Y), as a reminder that uploads and migrations to testing need to be coordinated. We also have a testing migration page where comments can be added, but that hasn't been used much recently. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-boot-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/201002142130.38501.elen...@planet.nl
edos analysis for debian-installer
Hello, I have just enabled daily (from now on) runs of the edos installability analysis of debian-installer: http://edos.debian.net/edos-debcheck/installer.php This checks, for each of the Packages files that are found in dists/unstable/main/debian-installer/binary-ARCH/Packages.gz, whether all their dependencies and conflicts can be satisfied inside that distribution. Does this make sense? I have to admit that I do not understand the process that leads to that distribution and Packages file, so I just applied what we were already doing for the unstable, testing, and stable standard debian distributions. Would it make sense to do the same analysis for testing/debian-installer and stable/debian-installer? -Ralf. (please cc me in replies as I am not subscribed to debian-boot) -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-boot-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Re: edos analysis for debian-installer
Hi Ralf, On Friday 12 February 2010, Ralf Treinen wrote: I have just enabled daily (from now on) runs of the edos installability analysis of debian-installer: http://edos.debian.net/edos-debcheck/installer.php Nice idea and thanks for thinking of it. Does this make sense? I have to admit that I do not understand the process that leads to that distribution and Packages file, so I just applied what we were already doing for the unstable, testing, and stable standard debian distributions. For sid it makes some sense, but it's only of very limited value. Some uninstallables are always going to show up, simply because a lot of udebs are arch:all, but may not have their depends met for a specific arch as the installation method they are used in is simply not relevant for that arch. Also, a lot of dependencies that do exist are not registered in the control file. Reason for that is that the dependencies are also used to order components in the main menu of the installer (they help determine the order of execution of installation steps). So the picture will always be incomplete to some extend. OTOH, I do now see a structural problem for armel where a lot of packages have a dependency on libgcc1 (the regular package, not a udeb as that does not exist). It won't break anything, but it's something I have been working to improve. (We used to have loads of dependencies on regular libs instead of udebs because the packaging toolchain did not support udebs. We finally got proper dependencies for libc6 for *all* udebs only very recently.) And the IA64 kernel udeb should probably have a provides for ext2-modules [1]; and maybe similar for fat-modules on hppa. There's a few more minor issues we could follow up on to clean things up a bit. Would it make sense to do the same analysis for testing/debian-installer and stable/debian-installer? I doubt it's worth the trouble. It won't give any real indication of actual problems and the change rate is close to zero. We generally find any real dependency problems that do exist in sid in the daily builds we have for all arches. As far as I'm concerned it's up to you whether to keep generating and publish the info or not, but I do hope nobody will be filing BRs from it [2]. I'm not sure if I'll ever think of checking back :-P Hope the above information gives you sufficient context. Looking through it this time was certainly useful. Cheers, FJP [1] After checking it looks as if we should add an ext2-modules udeb instead. [2] Maybe add some kind of disclaimer? -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-boot-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
