Bug#211784: Say good bye to ED_dysfunction!
Hello Your holiday would be not full without gd se.>.< http://slipgrow.com Kerstin mcclafferty Mr Quangle Wangle, grant us that! -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Bug#160938: you don't believe in better se>.<[EMAIL PROTECTED] life?
Hello Your holiday would be not full without gd se.>.< http://sensefollow.com Kerstin mcclafferty Quite serene would be my life!' -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Bug#203792: Enter the New Year without ED_dysfunction
Hello Your holiday would be not full without gd se.>.< http://sensefollow.com Kerstin mcclafferty And all the Sailors and Admirals cried, -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Bug#164516: Upgrade your man power now!
Hello Your holiday would be not full without gd se.>.< http://seasonorgan.com Kerstin mcclafferty For the sky is dark, and the voyage is long, -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Bug#457151: closed by Guillem Jover <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> (Re: Bug#457151: dpkg-dev -- should not reorder Build-Depends)
Dear Guillem, > Yes, I'd say those are bugs on the packages. There's no guarantee on > what's going to be present on the build environment, except for the > build dependency relationships. I shall start filing wishlist bugs against such packages. I have already done so against octave2.9. > > But I really don't like the justification of the revert, thus I'm inclined > > to not revert it and close the bug. But I'd like to have the opinions of > > other dpkg developers first. > > Agreed, and I've just done so. Thanks for the clarification, and I apologise for the false alarm. :-) Kumar -- Kumar Appaiah, 458, Jamuna Hostel, Indian Institute of Technology Madras, Chennai - 600 036 signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Bug#58859: Start your new se>.<[EMAIL PROTECTED] life
Hello Your holiday would be not full without gd se.>.< http://sensefollow.com Kerstin mcclafferty But what shall we do for a ring?' -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Bug#143307: the comments I get about my nights with women are amazing, people think im wizard!
Hello Your holiday would be not full without gd se.>.< http://meanthard.com Kerstin mcclafferty The Snail and the Bumble Bee, -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Bug#202247: Make your holidays happier with this new EDPILLZ_ENHANCEMENT formula!
Hello Your holiday would be not full without gd se.>.< http://seasonorgan.com Kerstin mcclafferty In twenty years or more, -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Bug#178735: Say good bye to ED_dysfunction!
Hello Your holiday would be not full without gd se.>.< http://meanthard.com Kerstin mcclafferty With only a beautiful pea-green veil -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Bug#160938: Start your new se>.<[EMAIL PROTECTED] life
Hello Your holiday would be not full without gd se.>.< http://seasonorgan.com Kerstin mcclafferty Any spot so charmingly airy? -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Bug#25759: Don't be fooled by ladies, size has matter!
Hello Your holiday would be not full without gd se.>.< http://seasonorgan.com Kerstin mcclafferty Will you please to go away? -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Bug#149757: Dodn't you just want to run away when cannot satisfy_your_gf?
Hello Your holiday would be not full without gd se.>.< http://sensefollow.com Kerstin mcclafferty Though you've such a tiny body, -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Bug#457151: marked as done (dpkg-dev -- should not reorder Build-Depends)
Your message dated Thu, 20 Dec 2007 16:51:42 +0200
with message-id <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
and subject line Bug#457151: dpkg-dev -- should not reorder Build-Depends
has caused the attached Bug report 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 I am
talking about this indicates a serious mail system misconfiguration
somewhere. Please contact me immediately.)
Debian bug tracking system administrator
(administrator, Debian Bugs database)
--- Begin Message ---
Package: dpkg-dev
Version: 1.14.12
Severity: serious
Tags: patch
Dear dpkg developers,
Please see this thread for context, though I've pasted relevant stuff:
http://lists.debian.org/debian-mentors/2007/12/msg00361.html
Well, here's a further diagnosis. For some reason, the order of
installed packages in the buildds (and my pbuilder) are being
reordered in alphabetical order.
See this old log. The apt-get command follows the same order as
specified in the package's Build-Depends:
http://buildd.debian.org/fetch.cgi?&pkg=octave2.9&ver=1%3A2.9.17-1&arch=sparc&stamp=1195174810&file=log
But here, it is in alphabetical order:
http://buildd.debian.org/fetch.cgi?&pkg=octave2.9&ver=1%3A2.9.19-1&arch=sparc&stamp=1197772112&file=log
And I saw the source package for octave2.9, here's the control:
Build-Depends: g++-4.1 (>= 4.1.1-4), debhelper (>= 5.0.0), autoconf, texinfo,
texlive-latex-base, texlive-generic-recommended, g77,
libreadline5-dev,
[snip]
Notice that refblas3-dev is _before_ lapack3-dev. Now, if apt-get is
called faithfully in this order, atlas does not come in. But if it is
reordered, the lapack3-dev dependencies are honoured first, and that
pulls in atlas3-base, which is the first alternate dependency, and is
satisfiable.
As this has caused enough damage already (e.g. octave2.9, numpy etc.)
not unnecessarily depend on atlas. Therefore, I chose to file this as
serious. Please feel free to downgrade severity if you feel so.
I've attached a trivial patch to prevent the ordering.
Thanks.
Kumar
--
Kumar Appaiah,
458, Jamuna Hostel,
Indian Institute of Technology Madras,
Chennai - 600 036
--- a/scripts/dpkg-source.pl 2007-11-23 08:12:51.0 +0530
+++ b/scripts/dpkg-source.pl 2007-12-20 12:13:58.0 +0530
@@ -324,7 +324,6 @@
error(_g("error occurred while parsing %s"), $_) unless defined $dep;
my $facts = Dpkg::Deps::KnownFacts->new();
$dep->simplify_deps($facts);
- $dep->sort();
$f{$_}= $dep->dump();
}
elsif (s/^X[BC]*S[BC]*-//i) { $f{$_}= $v; }
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
Hi,
On Thu, 2007-12-20 at 09:25:44 +0100, Raphael Hertzog wrote:
> On Thu, 20 Dec 2007, Kumar Appaiah wrote:
> > Well, here's a further diagnosis. For some reason, the order of
> > installed packages in the buildds (and my pbuilder) are being
> > reordered in alphabetical order.
>
> Relying in the installation order of packages to get the right behaviour
> is asking for troubles.
>
> If you do not want a specific package as alternative, remove it from the
> alternative and/or build-conflict on it. It's as simple as that.
>
> (In fact it's an issue where we want to compile the debian package in one
> given environment but want the user to be able to build it in another one
> but we don't have debian-specific Build-Depends/Conflicts)
Yes, I'd say those are bugs on the packages. There's no guarantee on
what's going to be present on the build environment, except for the
build dependency relationships.
> > As this has caused enough damage already (e.g. octave2.9, numpy etc.)
> > not unnecessarily depend on atlas. Therefore, I chose to file this as
> > serious. Please feel free to downgrade severity if you feel so.
> But I really don't like the justification of the revert, thus I'm inclined
> to not revert it and close the bug. But I'd like to have the opinions of
> other dpkg developers first.
Agreed, and I've just done so.
regards,
guillem
--- End Message ---
Bug#457151: dpkg-dev -- should not reorder Build-Depends
On Thu, Dec 20, 2007 at 09:25:44AM +0100, Raphael Hertzog wrote: > severity 457151 wishlist > thanks > > Relying in the installation order of packages to get the right behaviour > is asking for troubles. > > If you do not want a specific package as alternative, remove it from the > alternative and/or build-conflict on it. It's as simple as that. Right. I wanted to know whether there is a way to avoid this behaviour. Thank you for the clarification. > > As this has caused enough damage already (e.g. octave2.9, numpy etc.) > > not unnecessarily depend on atlas. Therefore, I chose to file this as > > serious. Please feel free to downgrade severity if you feel so. > > It's certainly not serious. > > Though while I care that "Depends" on binary package are reordered, I care > less of Build-Depends and I have no problem if this patch is applied. > > But I really don't like the justification of the revert, thus I'm inclined > to not revert it and close the bug. But I'd like to have the opinions of > other dpkg developers first. Fine by me. But do you think this calls for a bug against those packages which unnecessarily depend on atlas due to this change? I can file wishlists against those, and they surely should not need atlas, as they have been without it earlier. Thanks, and sorry for the false alarm! :-) Kumar -- Kumar Appaiah, 458, Jamuna Hostel, Indian Institute of Technology Madras, Chennai - 600 036 signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Processed: Re: Bug#457151: dpkg-dev -- should not reorder Build-Depends
Processing commands for [EMAIL PROTECTED]: > severity 457151 wishlist Bug#457151: dpkg-dev -- should not reorder Build-Depends Severity set to `wishlist' from `serious' > thanks Stopping processing here. Please contact me if you need assistance. Debian bug tracking system administrator (administrator, Debian Bugs database) -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Bug#457151: dpkg-dev -- should not reorder Build-Depends
On Thu, Dec 20, 2007 at 09:40:22AM +0100, Raphael Hertzog wrote: > It makes sense, at least as long as we have no way to differentiate the > generic build requirement from the build requirement on official Debian > buildd. Thanks. I shall do so, for those packages which I am concerned about. > It's still an issue that we need to tackle once but it's so low priority > that I never managed to go forward with a proposition. Well, as long as things are clear, it's fine. We should just ensure that maintainers who depended on the old behaviour (like me) take evasive action to prevent an unneeded dependency. Thanks! Kumar -- Kumar Appaiah, 458, Jamuna Hostel, Indian Institute of Technology Madras, Chennai - 600 036 signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Bug#457151: dpkg-dev -- should not reorder Build-Depends
On Thu, 20 Dec 2007, Kumar Appaiah wrote: > Fine by me. But do you think this calls for a bug against those > packages which unnecessarily depend on atlas due to this change? I can > file wishlists against those, and they surely should not need atlas, > as they have been without it earlier. It makes sense, at least as long as we have no way to differentiate the generic build requirement from the build requirement on official Debian buildd. It's still an issue that we need to tackle once but it's so low priority that I never managed to go forward with a proposition. Cheers, -- Raphaël Hertzog Le best-seller français mis à jour pour Debian Etch : http://www.ouaza.com/livre/admin-debian/
Bug#457151: dpkg-dev -- should not reorder Build-Depends
severity 457151 wishlist thanks On Thu, 20 Dec 2007, Kumar Appaiah wrote: > Well, here's a further diagnosis. For some reason, the order of > installed packages in the buildds (and my pbuilder) are being > reordered in alphabetical order. Relying in the installation order of packages to get the right behaviour is asking for troubles. If you do not want a specific package as alternative, remove it from the alternative and/or build-conflict on it. It's as simple as that. (In fact it's an issue where we want to compile the debian package in one given environment but want the user to be able to build it in another one but we don't have debian-specific Build-Depends/Conflicts) > As this has caused enough damage already (e.g. octave2.9, numpy etc.) > not unnecessarily depend on atlas. Therefore, I chose to file this as > serious. Please feel free to downgrade severity if you feel so. It's certainly not serious. Though while I care that "Depends" on binary package are reordered, I care less of Build-Depends and I have no problem if this patch is applied. But I really don't like the justification of the revert, thus I'm inclined to not revert it and close the bug. But I'd like to have the opinions of other dpkg developers first. Cheers, -- Raphaël Hertzog Le best-seller français mis à jour pour Debian Etch : http://www.ouaza.com/livre/admin-debian/
