Bug#819660: explicitly allow building automatic debug symbols packages not listed in control

[Guillem Jover]

On Mon, 2017-01-02 at 09:53:17 +0100, Mattia Rizzolo wrote:
> On Sun, Jan 01, 2017 at 11:15:36PM -0800, Russ Allbery wrote:
> > I massaged the wording a bit.  Here's what I committed for the next
> > release:
> > + Each binary package built from this source package has a
> > + corresponding paragraph, except for any automatically-generated
> > + debug packages that do not require one.
> 
> I now wonder, debhelper is adding this field to the binary control of
> those automatically generated packages:
> -DAuto-Built-Package=debug-symbols

Yeah, that was exactly my thought when I read Russ' mail. dpkg currently
does not key on that, but just because there was no easy way to fetch
that field from where it needs to be accessed:

  


but that will be fixed with something like this branch:

  


> Should this be documented too?  (Also dak accepts such packages not
> listed in control only if they have such field, see
> https://anonscm.debian.org/git/mirror/dak.git/tree/daklib/checks.py#n288
> https://anonscm.debian.org/git/mirror/dak.git/tree/daklib/utils.py#n1372

Yeah, and that reminds me that I should document that in deb-control(5)!

Thanks,
Guillem

Bug#819660: explicitly allow building automatic debug symbols packages not listed in control

[Mattia Rizzolo]

On Sun, Jan 01, 2017 at 11:15:36PM -0800, Russ Allbery wrote:
> I massaged the wording a bit.  Here's what I committed for the next
> release:
> + Each binary package built from this source package has a
> + corresponding paragraph, except for any automatically-generated
> + debug packages that do not require one.

I now wonder, debhelper is adding this field to the binary control of
those automatically generated packages:
-DAuto-Built-Package=debug-symbols
Should this be documented too?  (Also dak accepts such packages not
listed in control only if they have such field, see
https://anonscm.debian.org/git/mirror/dak.git/tree/daklib/checks.py#n288
https://anonscm.debian.org/git/mirror/dak.git/tree/daklib/utils.py#n1372

-- 
regards,
Mattia Rizzolo

GPG Key: 66AE 2B4A FCCF 3F52 DA18  4D18 4B04 3FCD B944 4540  .''`.
more about me:  https://mapreri.org : :'  :
Launchpad user: https://launchpad.net/~mapreri  `. `'`
Debian QA page: https://qa.debian.org/developer.php?login=mattia  `-


signature.asc
Description: PGP signature

Bug#819660: explicitly allow building automatic debug symbols packages not listed in control

[Russ Allbery]

Raphael Hertzog  writes:
> On Sat, 31 Dec 2016, Russ Allbery wrote:

>> >>The first paragraph of the control file contains information about the
>> >>source package in general. The subsequent sets each describe a binary
>> >>package that the source tree builds. All the binary packages have a
>> >>corresponding paragraph, except for the possible automatic debug
>> >>packages that do not require one.
>> 
>> > There may be better ways to phrase this, but I think there is still a
>> > need for some clarification about this.
>> 
>> Seems reasonable to me.  Seconded.

> Seconded.

I massaged the wording a bit.  Here's what I committed for the next
release:

--- a/policy.sgml
+++ b/policy.sgml
@@ -2680,9 +2680,12 @@ Package: libc6

 

- The first paragraph of the control file contains information about
- the source package in general. The subsequent sets each describe a
- binary package that the source tree builds.
+ The first paragraph of the control file contains information
+ about the source package in general.  The subsequent paragraphs
+ each describe a binary package that the source tree builds.
+ Each binary package built from this source package has a
+ corresponding paragraph, except for any automatically-generated
+ debug packages that do not require one.

 


-- 
Russ Allbery (r...@debian.org)   

Bug#819660: explicitly allow building automatic debug symbols packages not listed in control

[Raphael Hertzog]

On Sat, 31 Dec 2016, Russ Allbery wrote:
> >>[…]
> >>
> >>The first paragraph of the control file contains information about the
> >>source package in general. The subsequent sets each describe a binary
> >>package that the source tree builds. All the binary packages have a
> >>corresponding paragraph, except for the possible automatic debug
> >>packages that do not require one.
> 
> > There may be better ways to phrase this, but I think there is still a
> > need for some clarification about this.
> 
> Seems reasonable to me.  Seconded.

Seconded.

-- 
Raphaël Hertzog ◈ Debian Developer

Support Debian LTS: http://www.freexian.com/services/debian-lts.html
Learn to master Debian: http://debian-handbook.info/get/


signature.asc
Description: PGP signature

Bug#819660: explicitly allow building automatic debug symbols packages not listed in control

[Russ Allbery]

Tanguy Ortolo  writes:

> The Policy implicitly indicates a source package should only build
> binary packages listed in debian/control. At least, this is how
> ftpmaster interprets §5.2, 5.4 and 5.6.19, when you look at the Reject
> FAQ  (search for
> “debian/control breakage #2”).

> Now, this is quite not compatible with the new debug symbol packages
>  that are now
> automatically created.

> Since explicit is better than implicit, I think §5.2:

>>The debian/control file contains the most vital (and
>>version-independent) information about the source package and about the
>>binary packages it creates.
>>
>>The first paragraph of the control file contains information about the
>>source package in general. The subsequent sets each describe a binary
>>package that the source tree builds.

> could be completed by:

>>[…]
>>
>>The first paragraph of the control file contains information about the
>>source package in general. The subsequent sets each describe a binary
>>package that the source tree builds. All the binary packages have a
>>corresponding paragraph, except for the possible automatic debug
>>packages that do not require one.

> There may be better ways to phrase this, but I think there is still a
> need for some clarification about this.

Seems reasonable to me.  Seconded.

-- 
Russ Allbery (r...@debian.org)   

Bug#819660: explicitly allow building automatic debug symbols packages not listed in control

[Tanguy Ortolo]

Tanguy Ortolo, 2016-04-01 11:23+0200:

My new package gspell has just been rejected


That was an explicit April fool, shame on me for not noticing it!

concluding that they are okay with automatic debug packages may have 
been a bit premature. I will check what is going on here and update 
this report.


ftpmasters are still fine with automatic debug packages. I am just not 
fine with April fools… ;-)


--
 ,--.
: /` )   Tanguy Ortolo  
| `-'Debian Developer   
 \_


signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Bug#819660: explicitly allow building automatic debug symbols packages not listed in control

[Tanguy Ortolo]

Tanguy Ortolo, 2016-04-01 10:38+0200:
I have just checked on #debian-ftp, and joerg confirmed that they are 
okay with automatic debug packages. That question was in fact already 
implicitly answered, since they did the work to accept these packages 
in the archive!


My new package gspell has just been rejected because it builds an 
automatic debug package not listed in debian/control, so that concluding 
that they are okay with automatic debug packages may have been a bit 
premature. I will check what is going on here and update this report.


--
 ,--.
: /` )   Tanguy Ortolo  
| `-'Debian Developer   
 \_


signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Bug#819660: explicitly allow building automatic debug symbols packages not listed in control

[Tanguy Ortolo]

Bill Allombert, 2016-03-31 18:42+0200:

Are the FTP masters happy with that ?


I have just checked on #debian-ftp, and joerg confirmed that they are 
okay with automatic debug packages. That question was in fact already 
implicitly answered, since they did the work to accept these packages in 
the archive!


I will still ask them to update their Reject FAQ, which could do with an 
update, as the Policy.


Regards,

--
 ,--.
: /` )   Tanguy Ortolo  
| `-'Debian Developer   
 \_


signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Bug#819660: explicitly allow building automatic debug symbols packages not listed in control

[Tanguy Ortolo]

Hello, and thanks for the super fast reply.

Bill Allombert, 2016-03-31 18:42+0200:

The Policy implicitly indicates a source package should only build
binary packages listed in debian/control. At least, this is how
ftpmaster interprets §5.2, 5.4 and 5.6.19, when you look at the Reject
FAQ  (search for
“debian/control breakage #2”).


Well, historically, this is the FTP masters that asked for this
rule.


Now, this is quite not compatible with the new debug symbol packages
 that are now
automatically created.


Are the FTP masters happy with that ?


Not sure, I guess they should be as it is all the point of these 
automatic debug packages, but I will ask them.


--
 ,--.
: /` )   Tanguy Ortolo  
| `-'Debian Developer   
 \_


signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Bug#819660: explicitly allow building automatic debug symbols packages not listed in control

[Bill Allombert]

On Thu, Mar 31, 2016 at 06:28:25PM +0200, Tanguy Ortolo wrote:
> Package: debian-policy
> Severity: wishlist
> 
> Hello,
> 
> 
> The Policy implicitly indicates a source package should only build
> binary packages listed in debian/control. At least, this is how
> ftpmaster interprets §5.2, 5.4 and 5.6.19, when you look at the Reject
> FAQ  (search for
> “debian/control breakage #2”).

Well, historically, this is the FTP masters that asked for this
rule.

> Now, this is quite not compatible with the new debug symbol packages
>  that are now
> automatically created.

Are the FTP masters happy with that ?

Cheers,
-- 
Bill. 

Imagine a large red swirl here. 

Bug#819660: explicitly allow building automatic debug symbols packages not listed in control

[Tanguy Ortolo]

Package: debian-policy
Severity: wishlist

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA512

Hello,


The Policy implicitly indicates a source package should only build
binary packages listed in debian/control. At least, this is how
ftpmaster interprets §5.2, 5.4 and 5.6.19, when you look at the Reject
FAQ  (search for
“debian/control breakage #2”).

Now, this is quite not compatible with the new debug symbol packages
 that are now
automatically created.


Since explicit is better than implicit, I think §5.2:

>The debian/control file contains the most vital (and
>version-independent) information about the source package and about the
>binary packages it creates.
>
>The first paragraph of the control file contains information about the
>source package in general. The subsequent sets each describe a binary
>package that the source tree builds.

could be completed by:

>[…]
>
>The first paragraph of the control file contains information about the
>source package in general. The subsequent sets each describe a binary
>package that the source tree builds. All the binary packages have a
>corresponding paragraph, except for the possible automatic debug
>packages that do not require one.

There may be better ways to phrase this, but I think there is still a
need for some clarification about this.


Regards,

- -- 
Tanguy


-BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-
Version: GnuPG v1
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=ZF0E
-END PGP SIGNATURE-