Bug#1016996: libnl-3-200-udeb: uninstallable, depends on non-udeb sgml-base

[Matthieu Baerts]

Hi Cyril,

On 12/08/2022 01:33, Cyril Brulebois wrote:
> Hi Matthieu,
> 
> Matthieu Baerts  (2022-08-11):
>> Thank you for having CCed me, provided a fix so quickly and for the
>> detailed explanations! Sorry, I didn't notice the regression when
>> testing on my side.
> 
> Absolutely no problems; it's easy to spot things when some daily build
> breaks, much easier than spotting all the changes in a set of 18 binary
> packages which tend to hardcode a strict dependency toward sibling
> packages…

Thank you! :-)

>> Do we need to revert your workaround when #1015263 will be fixed? If
>> yes, are you tracking this issue and planning to do the revert or do
>> you prefer if someone else looks at that?
> 
> At the moment, I didn't think that far ahead… First things first: I hope
> this issue doesn't become more widespread, so I'm hoping debhelper gets
> a fix sooner than later. If more hotfixes like this are needed, I'll
> probably plan on tracking individual changes to coordinate reverts. In
> the meanwhile, if you could take care of cancelling that change in that
> particular package when the time comes, that'd be awesome! Otherwise, I
> do have sticky notes and a large desk, I can deal with it. :)

OK, yes, no issue for me, I just subscribed to the debhelper bug
(#1015263) and I will revert the modification in debian/rules when needed.

Cheers,
Matt
-- 
Tessares | Belgium | Hybrid Access Solutions
www.tessares.net

Bug#1016996: libnl-3-200-udeb: uninstallable, depends on non-udeb sgml-base

[Cyril Brulebois]

Adam Borowski  (2022-08-11):
> Yeah but I shouldn't have let the bad dependency through.
> 
> My sponsoring workflow automates this kind of checks for regular packages
> but fails to check udebs, and I thus don't have in mind to look by hand.
> Apologies.

Really, don't worry, that's fine.

> But then, we do have _someone_ to spot and fix such problems :þ

It's been a while since the last one, but when we eventually get back to
producing d-i releases: I'll freeze udeb-producing packages for a few
hours or a few days, so that such regressions can't sneak into testing
behind my back, and in the general case, such problems will be spotted
(as you mentioned), and they shouldn't be time-critical anyway.


Cheers,
-- 
Cyril Brulebois (k...@debian.org)
D-I release manager -- Release team member -- Freelance Consultant


signature.asc
Description: PGP signature

Bug#1016996: libnl-3-200-udeb: uninstallable, depends on non-udeb sgml-base

[Cyril Brulebois]

Hi Matthieu,

Matthieu Baerts  (2022-08-11):
> Thank you for having CCed me, provided a fix so quickly and for the
> detailed explanations! Sorry, I didn't notice the regression when
> testing on my side.

Absolutely no problems; it's easy to spot things when some daily build
breaks, much easier than spotting all the changes in a set of 18 binary
packages which tend to hardcode a strict dependency toward sibling
packages…

> Do we need to revert your workaround when #1015263 will be fixed? If
> yes, are you tracking this issue and planning to do the revert or do
> you prefer if someone else looks at that?

At the moment, I didn't think that far ahead… First things first: I hope
this issue doesn't become more widespread, so I'm hoping debhelper gets
a fix sooner than later. If more hotfixes like this are needed, I'll
probably plan on tracking individual changes to coordinate reverts. In
the meanwhile, if you could take care of cancelling that change in that
particular package when the time comes, that'd be awesome! Otherwise, I
do have sticky notes and a large desk, I can deal with it. :)


Cheers,
-- 
Cyril Brulebois (k...@debian.org)
D-I release manager -- Release team member -- Freelance Consultant


signature.asc
Description: PGP signature

Bug#1016996: libnl-3-200-udeb: uninstallable, depends on non-udeb sgml-base

[Adam Borowski]

On Thu, Aug 11, 2022 at 02:00:59AM +0200, Cyril Brulebois wrote:
> The set of packages you uploaded contains uninstallable udebs, as they
> depend on sgml-base, which doesn't exist in the installer context
> (there's no udeb for it.

> This is not your fault, that's debhelper's #1015263:

Yeah but I shouldn't have let the bad dependency through.

My sponsoring workflow automates this kind of checks for regular packages
but fails to check udebs, and I thus don't have in mind to look by hand.
Apologies.

But then, we do have _someone_ to spot and fix such problems :þ

> +libnl3 (3.7.0-0.2) unstable; urgency=medium
> +
> +  * Non-maintainer upload.
> +  * Dodge debhelper's #1015263 by resetting misc:Depends via
> +DEB_DH_GENCONTROL_ARGS_libnl{,-genl}-3-200-udeb to avoid pulling
> +sgml-base.
> +
> + -- Cyril Brulebois   Wed, 10 Aug 2022 23:43:51 +

> +# Dodge debhelper's #1015263, pulling sgml-base for udebs:
> +DEB_DH_GENCONTROL_ARGS_$(udeb_libnl) = -- -Vmisc:Depends=
> +DEB_DH_GENCONTROL_ARGS_$(udeb_libnl_genl) = -- -Vmisc:Depends=

Thanks!


Meow.
-- 
⢀⣴⠾⠻⢶⣦⠀
⣾⠁⢠⠒⠀⣿⡁ What kind of a drug are "base" and "red pill"?  I think acid is
⢿⡄⠘⠷⠚⠋⠀ LSD, which would make base... ?  Judging from the behaviour of
⠈⠳⣄ those "based and redpilled", something nasty.

Bug#1016996: libnl-3-200-udeb: uninstallable, depends on non-udeb sgml-base

[Matthieu Baerts]

Hi Cyril,

On 11/08/2022 02:00, Cyril Brulebois wrote:
> Package: libnl-3-200-udeb
> Version: 3.7.0-0.1
> Severity: grave
> Tags: d-i patch
> Justification: renders package unusable
> X-Debbugs-Cc: Matthieu Baerts , Adam Borowski 
> , debian-b...@lists.debian.org
> 
> Hi Matthieu, hi Adam,
> 
> The set of packages you uploaded contains uninstallable udebs, as they
> depend on sgml-base, which doesn't exist in the installer context
> (there's no udeb for it. Current dependencies are as follows:
> 
> $ dpkg --info libnl-3-200-udeb_3.7.0-0.1_amd64.udeb|grep Depends
>  Depends: sgml-base (>= 1.28), libc6-udeb (>= 2.34)
> 
> $ dpkg --info libnl-genl-3-200-udeb_3.4.0-1+b1_amd64.udeb|grep Depends
>  Depends: libnl-3-200-udeb (= 3.4.0-1+b1), libc6-udeb (>= 2.28)
> 
> This leads to the following build failure for the daily builds of the
> installer:
> 
> The following packages have unmet dependencies:
>  libnl-3-200-udeb : Depends: sgml-base (>= 1.28) but it is not installable
>  libnl-genl-3-200-udeb : Depends: sgml-base (>= 1.28) but it is not 
> installable
> E: Unable to correct problems, you have held broken packages.
> 
> (Note that I'm filing this bug report against only one of those udebs.)
> 
> This is not your fault, that's debhelper's #1015263:
>   https://bugs.debian.org/1015263
> 
> but I thought I'd loop you in so that you know about this issue, and
> about my current plan: the installer team (X-D-Cc'd) doesn't require an
> immediate fix, but since I'm not sure when the debhelper bug is getting
> fixed (and packages binNMU'd), I thought I'd prepare a workaround to
> make sure this source package isn't a blocker when we plan for a Debian
> Installer release.

Thank you for having CCed me, provided a fix so quickly and for the
detailed explanations! Sorry, I didn't notice the regression when
testing on my side.

Do we need to revert your workaround when #1015263 will be fixed? If
yes, are you tracking this issue and planning to do the revert or do you
prefer if someone else looks at that?

Cheers,
Matt
-- 
Tessares | Belgium | Hybrid Access Solutions
www.tessares.net

Bug#1016996: libnl-3-200-udeb: uninstallable, depends on non-udeb sgml-base

[Cyril Brulebois]

Package: libnl-3-200-udeb
Version: 3.7.0-0.1
Severity: grave
Tags: d-i patch
Justification: renders package unusable
X-Debbugs-Cc: Matthieu Baerts , Adam Borowski 
, debian-b...@lists.debian.org

Hi Matthieu, hi Adam,

The set of packages you uploaded contains uninstallable udebs, as they
depend on sgml-base, which doesn't exist in the installer context
(there's no udeb for it. Current dependencies are as follows:

$ dpkg --info libnl-3-200-udeb_3.7.0-0.1_amd64.udeb|grep Depends
 Depends: sgml-base (>= 1.28), libc6-udeb (>= 2.34)

$ dpkg --info libnl-genl-3-200-udeb_3.4.0-1+b1_amd64.udeb|grep Depends
 Depends: libnl-3-200-udeb (= 3.4.0-1+b1), libc6-udeb (>= 2.28)

This leads to the following build failure for the daily builds of the
installer:

The following packages have unmet dependencies:
 libnl-3-200-udeb : Depends: sgml-base (>= 1.28) but it is not installable
 libnl-genl-3-200-udeb : Depends: sgml-base (>= 1.28) but it is not 
installable
E: Unable to correct problems, you have held broken packages.

(Note that I'm filing this bug report against only one of those udebs.)

This is not your fault, that's debhelper's #1015263:
  https://bugs.debian.org/1015263

but I thought I'd loop you in so that you know about this issue, and
about my current plan: the installer team (X-D-Cc'd) doesn't require an
immediate fix, but since I'm not sure when the debhelper bug is getting
fixed (and packages binNMU'd), I thought I'd prepare a workaround to
make sure this source package isn't a blocker when we plan for a Debian
Installer release.

I'll upload shortly, source debdiff attached. Please let me know if you
have any comments or questions.


In passing, thanks for your work on this package!


Cheers,
-- 
Cyril Brulebois (k...@debian.org)
D-I release manager -- Release team member -- Freelance Consultant
diff -Nru libnl3-3.7.0/debian/changelog libnl3-3.7.0/debian/changelog
--- libnl3-3.7.0/debian/changelog   2022-08-01 15:53:32.0 +
+++ libnl3-3.7.0/debian/changelog   2022-08-10 23:43:51.0 +
@@ -1,3 +1,12 @@
+libnl3 (3.7.0-0.2) unstable; urgency=medium
+
+  * Non-maintainer upload.
+  * Dodge debhelper's #1015263 by resetting misc:Depends via
+DEB_DH_GENCONTROL_ARGS_libnl{,-genl}-3-200-udeb to avoid pulling
+sgml-base.
+
+ -- Cyril Brulebois   Wed, 10 Aug 2022 23:43:51 +
+
 libnl3 (3.7.0-0.1) unstable; urgency=low
 
   * Non-maintainer upload (Closes: #1016485)
diff -Nru libnl3-3.7.0/debian/rules libnl3-3.7.0/debian/rules
--- libnl3-3.7.0/debian/rules   2022-08-01 14:30:22.0 +
+++ libnl3-3.7.0/debian/rules   2022-08-10 23:43:11.0 +
@@ -34,6 +34,10 @@
 
 DEB_CONFIGURE_EXTRA_FLAGS += --libdir=\$${prefix}/lib/$(DEB_HOST_MULTIARCH)
 
+# Dodge debhelper's #1015263, pulling sgml-base for udebs:
+DEB_DH_GENCONTROL_ARGS_$(udeb_libnl) = -- -Vmisc:Depends=
+DEB_DH_GENCONTROL_ARGS_$(udeb_libnl_genl) = -- -Vmisc:Depends=
+
 clean::
# from some unknown reason CDBS does not remove the builddir
rm -rf $(DEB_BUILDDIR)