Re: DEB_BUILD_OPTIONS vs DEB_BUILD_PROFILES: What is right and what is wrong?
Hi, On Sun, Jan 6, 2019 at 1:45 AM Axel Beckert wrote: > > Hi, > > while trying to get the nocheck build profile working, I stumbled over > some discrepancies between > > * Debian Policy §4.9.1, > * dpkg-buildflags (behaviour + man page), and > * lintian's long description of the tag > override_dh_auto_test-does-not-check-DEB_BUILD_OPTIONS. > > lintian recommends, e.g. at > https://lintian.debian.org/tags/override_dh_auto_test-does-not-check-DEB_BUILD_OPTIONS.html: > > > The debian/rules file for this package has an override_dh_auto_test > > target that does not appear to check DEB_BUILD_OPTIONS against > > nocheck. > > > > As this check is not automatically performed by debhelper(1), the > > specified testsuite is run regardless of another maintainer using the > > nocheck build profile. > > > > Please add a check such as: > > > > override_dh_auto_test: > > ifeq (,$(filter nocheck,$(DEB_BUILD_OPTIONS))) > > ./run-upstream-testsuite > > endif I personnaly use: ifeq (,$(filter nocheck,$(DEB_BUILD_OPTIONS) $(DEB_BUILD_PROFILES)) ./run-upstream-testsuite endif I believe it is policy compliant and burn proof... Maybe a footnote on policy or debref ? Bastien
Re: DEB_BUILD_OPTIONS vs DEB_BUILD_PROFILES: What is right and what is wrong?
Hi Mattia, Mattia Rizzolo wrote: > On Sun, Jan 06, 2019 at 02:55:30AM +0100, Axel Beckert wrote: > > Johannes Schauer wrote: > > > > A) lintian by mixing up build tags and build profiles? (Maybe this > > > >mentioning of build profiles was overseen when fixing #889746.) > > > > > > I assume this to be the case. > > > > Would be happy to hear, if Mattia sees this the same way. > > Yes, it's an oversight. ISTR you have commit rights for lintian, I > think you should just commit an s/profile/option/ in that description. Thanks! Done now. Regards, Axel -- ,''`. | Axel Beckert , https://people.debian.org/~abe/ : :' : | Debian Developer, ftp.ch.debian.org Admin `. `' | 4096R: 2517 B724 C5F6 CA99 5329 6E61 2FF9 CD59 6126 16B5 `-| 1024D: F067 EA27 26B9 C3FC 1486 202E C09E 1D89 9593 0EDE
Re: DEB_BUILD_OPTIONS vs DEB_BUILD_PROFILES: What is right and what is wrong?
On Sun, Jan 06, 2019 at 02:55:30AM +0100, Axel Beckert wrote: > Johannes Schauer wrote: > > > A) lintian by mixing up build tags and build profiles? (Maybe this > > >mentioning of build profiles was overseen when fixing #889746.) > > > > I assume this to be the case. > > Would be happy to hear, if Mattia sees this the same way. Yes, it's an oversight. ISTR you have commit rights for lintian, I think you should just commit an s/profile/option/ in that description. > > > If I want to build something with the build-profile nocheck, do I > > > really have to set DEB_BUILD_OPTIONS myself separately to "nocheck" in > > > addition to "-Pnocheck"? That sounds very counterintuitive to me… > > > > I fear you currently have to manually set DEB_BUILD_OPTIONS=nocheck in > > addition > > to -Pnocheck. The reason is, that currently no tool sets > > DEB_BUILD_OPTIONS=nocheck if the nocheck build profile is active. This > > could be > > changed in the future but I know of no such efforts right now. > > Ok, this is really not what I expected to be the case, especially > after #889746. The reason for referring to _OPTIONS is that that's the one defined by policy, and what everybody has been accustomed for many years. But josch explained quite a few things already… :) -- 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
Re: DEB_BUILD_OPTIONS vs DEB_BUILD_PROFILES: What is right and what is wrong?
Hi Johannes, thanks for the quick response. Johannes Schauer wrote: > > A) lintian by mixing up build tags and build profiles? (Maybe this > >mentioning of build profiles was overseen when fixing #889746.) > > I assume this to be the case. Would be happy to hear, if Mattia sees this the same way. > > B) dpkg-buildpackages by not setting nocheck in DEB_BUILD_OPTIONS? > > This could be brought to the dpkg maintainers. Guillem? (If you need the full context: https://lists.debian.org/debian-devel/2019/01/msg00039.html) > > If I want to build something with the build-profile nocheck, do I > > really have to set DEB_BUILD_OPTIONS myself separately to "nocheck" in > > addition to "-Pnocheck"? That sounds very counterintuitive to me… > > I fear you currently have to manually set DEB_BUILD_OPTIONS=nocheck in > addition > to -Pnocheck. The reason is, that currently no tool sets > DEB_BUILD_OPTIONS=nocheck if the nocheck build profile is active. This could > be > changed in the future but I know of no such efforts right now. Ok, this is really not what I expected to be the case, especially after #889746. > Also refer to the current documentation of the nocheck build profile under > [1]. > It says: > > > No test suite should be run, and build dependencies used only for that > > purpose should be ignored. Builds that set this profile must also add > > nocheck > > to DEB_BUILD_OPTIONS […] > [1] https://wiki.debian.org/BuildProfileSpec Thanks for that pointer! > The only alternative I see that would make this more convenient, would be if > we > rewrite all affected d/rules file to check DEB_BUILD_OPTIONS *and* > DEB_BUILD_PROFILES when deciding whether or not to run the test > suite. This is actually what I just implemented for the package with which I ran into that issue: override_dh_auto_test: ifeq (,$(filter nocheck,$(DEB_BUILD_OPTIONS) $(DEB_BUILD_PROFILES))) […] > You already discovered that this would be *a lot* of them. *nod* So if this should be made easier, it's probably at dpkg-buildpackage or close-by. > There is a similar issue with the nodoc build profile where one must also > currently manually supply DEB_BUILD_OPTIONS=nodoc additionally. That was quiet likely, yes: different color, same issue. :-) Regards, Axel -- ,''`. | Axel Beckert , https://people.debian.org/~abe/ : :' : | Debian Developer, ftp.ch.debian.org Admin `. `' | 4096R: 2517 B724 C5F6 CA99 5329 6E61 2FF9 CD59 6126 16B5 `-| 1024D: F067 EA27 26B9 C3FC 1486 202E C09E 1D89 9593 0EDE
Re: DEB_BUILD_OPTIONS vs DEB_BUILD_PROFILES: What is right and what is wrong?
Hi, Quoting Axel Beckert (2019-01-06 01:39:09) > while trying to get the nocheck build profile working, I stumbled over > some discrepancies between > > * Debian Policy §4.9.1, > * dpkg-buildflags (behaviour + man page), and > * lintian's long description of the tag > override_dh_auto_test-does-not-check-DEB_BUILD_OPTIONS. > > [...] > > So now I wonder: what is wrong and needs to be fixed? > > A) lintian by mixing up build tags and build profiles? (Maybe this >mentioning of build profiles was overseen when fixing #889746.) I assume this to be the case. > B) dpkg-buildpackages by not setting nocheck in DEB_BUILD_OPTIONS? This could be brought to the dpkg maintainers. > C) debian-policy (and #889746 + lintian as a followup issue) by >documenting DEB_BUILD_OPTIONS and DEB_BUILD_PROFILES both mixed >under DEB_BUILD_OPTIONS? > D) Something completely different like dh or so? > > Or am I just missing something totally essential and don't see the > forest for the trees? > > And a more general question, especially in case A: > > If I want to build something with the build-profile nocheck, do I > really have to set DEB_BUILD_OPTIONS myself separately to "nocheck" in > addition to "-Pnocheck"? That sounds very counterintuitive to me… I fear you currently have to manually set DEB_BUILD_OPTIONS=nocheck in addition to -Pnocheck. The reason is, that currently no tool sets DEB_BUILD_OPTIONS=nocheck if the nocheck build profile is active. This could be changed in the future but I know of no such efforts right now. Also refer to the current documentation of the nocheck build profile under [1]. It says: > No test suite should be run, and build dependencies used only for that > purpose should be ignored. Builds that set this profile must also add nocheck > to DEB_BUILD_OPTIONS The only alternative I see that would make this more convenient, would be if we rewrite all affected d/rules file to check DEB_BUILD_OPTIONS *and* DEB_BUILD_PROFILES when deciding whether or not to run the test suite. You already discovered that this would be *a lot* of them. There is a similar issue with the nodoc build profile where one must also currently manually supply DEB_BUILD_OPTIONS=nodoc additionally. Thanks! cheers, josch [1] https://wiki.debian.org/BuildProfileSpec signature.asc Description: signature
DEB_BUILD_OPTIONS vs DEB_BUILD_PROFILES: What is right and what is wrong?
Hi, while trying to get the nocheck build profile working, I stumbled over some discrepancies between * Debian Policy §4.9.1, * dpkg-buildflags (behaviour + man page), and * lintian's long description of the tag override_dh_auto_test-does-not-check-DEB_BUILD_OPTIONS. lintian recommends, e.g. at https://lintian.debian.org/tags/override_dh_auto_test-does-not-check-DEB_BUILD_OPTIONS.html: > The debian/rules file for this package has an override_dh_auto_test > target that does not appear to check DEB_BUILD_OPTIONS against > nocheck. > > As this check is not automatically performed by debhelper(1), the > specified testsuite is run regardless of another maintainer using the > nocheck build profile. > > Please add a check such as: > > override_dh_auto_test: > ifeq (,$(filter nocheck,$(DEB_BUILD_OPTIONS))) > ./run-upstream-testsuite > endif Please note that lintian explicitly mentions the "nocheck build _profile_". (Emphasis is mine.) The Debian Policy says at §4.9.1 respectively at https://www.debian.org/doc/debian-policy/ch-source.html#debian-rules-and-deb-build-options: > 4.9.1. debian/rules and DEB_BUILD_OPTIONS > > Supporting the standardized environment variable DEB_BUILD_OPTIONS is > recommended. This variable can contain several flags to change how a > package is compiled and built. Each flag must be in the form flag or > flag=options. If multiple flags are given, they must be separated by > whitespace. [14] flag must start with a lowercase letter (a-z) and > consist only of lowercase letters, numbers (0-9), and the characters - > and _ (hyphen and underscore). options must not contain whitespace. > The same tag should not be given multiple times with conflicting > values. Package maintainers may assume that DEB_BUILD_OPTIONS will not > contain conflicting tags. > > The meaning of the following tags has been standardized: > > nocheck > > This tag says to not run any build-time test suite provided by the package. Please note that the Debian Policy talks about "tags" and not about "profiles". And dpkg-buildpackage(1) says: > -P, --build-profiles=profile[,...] > >Specify the profile(s) we build, as a comma-separated >list (since dpkg 1.17.2, long option since dpkg 1.18.8). >The default behavior is to build for no specific >profile. Also sets them (as a space separated list) as >the DEB_BUILD_PROFILES environment variable which >allows, for example, debian/rules files to use this >information for conditional builds. DEB_BUILD_OPTIONS is primarily (if not only) mentioned for parallel building: > -j, --jobs[=jobs|auto] > >[…] Also adds parallel=jobs or parallel to the >DEB_BUILD_OPTIONS environment variable which allows >debian/rules files to use this information for their own >purposes. […] So if I now use the code recommended by lintian to check for the nocheck build _profile_ and build with "dpkg-buildpackage -Pnocheck", my build fails, because DEB_BUILD_OPTIONS (as used by Lintian and documented in the Debian Policy at 4.9.1) does _not_ contain "nocheck" but just some "parallel=" as documented by dpkg-buildpackage(1). But the build profile name can be found in DEB_BUILD_PROFILES as documented by dpkg-buildpackage(1). To make easier to understand where my problem lays, here's a (more or less real-world) example: Given this code in debian/rules: > override_dh_auto_test: > ifeq (,$(filter nocheck,$(DEB_BUILD_OPTIONS))) > echo "$(DEB_BUILD_OPTIONS)" > echo "$(DEB_BUILD_PROFILES)" > exit 2 > endif The first two lines and the last line are copy and paste from the mentioned lintian tag's long description. If I now build this package with "dpkg-buildpackage -Pnocheck", it should IMHO build fine without running the tests, but it fails as follows: > debian/rules override_dh_auto_test > make[1]: Entering directory '/home/abe//' > echo "parallel=4" > parallel=4 > echo "nocheck" > nocheck > exit 2 > make[1]: *** [debian/rules:50: override_dh_auto_test] Error 2 > make[1]: Leaving directory '/home/abe//' > make: *** [debian/rules:24: binary] Error 2 > dpkg-buildpackage: error: debian/rules binary subprocess returned exit status > 2 Please note that nocheck and parallel=4 are not echoed by the same echo statement, i.e. are in separate DEB_BUILD_* variables. So my first guess was that lintian's documentation and tag name was wrong and that DEB_BUILD_PROFILES should have been meant. That would affect 1135 source packages: https://codesearch.debian.net/search?q=nocheck%2C%5C%24%5C%28DEB_BUILD_OPTIONS%5C%29 Ugh. (65 are using DEB_BUILD_PROFILES instead.) But then I found https://bugs.debian.org/889746 which exactly demanded earlier this year the opposite of what I had in my mind to fix this: to rename override_dh_auto_test-does-not-check-DEB_BUILD_PROFILES to
