re: git-buildpackage to be autoremoved due to python2 transition
Quoting peter green (2020-02-27 22:54:19) > > Relevant packages and bugs: > > 943107 git-buildpackage: Python2 removal in sid/bullseye > This bug is not marked as rc. > > Nevertheless I believe that this bug report is in-fact a false positive. From > what I can tell git-buildpackage, even in buster, does not (build-)depend on > python 2 or any python 2 modules. correct, but it does build-depend on packages that require python2: rpm I was recently in a similar situation where I thought I had a false positive for one of my package so I filed this bug: https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=952523 You can always check whether you got a false positive or not by investing the dependency relationship yourself. In this case: dose-ceve -T grml --deb-builds-from --deb-native-arch=amd64 debsrc://Sources deb://Packages > /tmp/graph.xml botch-graph-shortest-path /tmp/graph.xml /tmp/out.xml --source realpackage:src:git-buildpackage --target realpackage:src:python2.7 Thanks! cheers, josch signature.asc Description: signature
re: git-buildpackage to be autoremoved due to python2 transition
Relevant packages and bugs: 943107 git-buildpackage: Python2 removal in sid/bullseye This bug is not marked as rc. Nevertheless I believe that this bug report is in-fact a false positive. From what I can tell git-buildpackage, even in buster, does not (build-)depend on python 2 or any python 2 modules. It does build-depend on python-pydoctor, but according to a recently entry in the pydoctor changelog that package "is a Python application and not used as a module" It would make sense to change the build-dependency to pydoctor in the next upload, but it's probablly not worth making an upload just for that change. 937132 nevow: Python2 removal in sid/bullseye Depended on by pydoctor in testing, but not in unstable. Should stop being a problem for git-buildpackage when pydoctor migrates. 938622 tahoe-lafs: Python2 removal in sid/bullseye Listed as a "blocker" of the above bug but not currently in testing. Personally I advocate ignoring "blockers" that are not in testing, but I'm not sure if consensus has been reached on that. Bugs which you may notice which are now not so relevant any more because they have been fixed in sid (but not yet migrated): 950216 [git-buildpackage] missing xsltproc autopkg test dependency Fixed in sid; migration blocked by FTBFS due to pydoctor breakage (#949232). When pydoctor has migrated, reattempting build (eg by re-upload) should fix this. Builds happen in unstable, so there is no need to wait for pydoctor to migrate to testing before retrying the build. I just requested a retry and the package built succesfully. I'd expect it to migrate as soon as dak and britney process the binary. 949232/948831 [pydoctor] needs to depend on cachecontrol 952546 [pydoctor] d/copyright & DFSG issues 937421 [pydoctor] Python2 removal in sid/bullseye Should hopefully be fixed in a few days when pydoctor migrates to testing, i'm not seeing any obvious blockers for that right now.
Help needed to make pkgconfig finding just built lib
Control: tags -1 help
Hi,
I'm trying to drop biosig4c++ with Python3 only in Git[1].
Unfortunately I get:
make[3]: Entering directory '/build/biosig4c++-1.9.5/python'
python3 setup.py build
Traceback (most recent call last):
File "setup.py", line 11, in
PKG=pkgconfig.parse('libbiosig')
File "/usr/lib/python3/dist-packages/pkgconfig/pkgconfig.py", line 248, in
parse
_raise_if_not_exists(package)
File "/usr/lib/python3/dist-packages/pkgconfig/pkgconfig.py", line 103, in
_raise_if_not_exists
raise PackageNotFoundError(package)
pkgconfig.pkgconfig.PackageNotFoundError: libbiosig not found
make[3]: [Makefile:14: build] Error 1 (ignored)
make[3]: Leaving directory '/build/biosig4c++-1.9.5/python'
libbiosig.so is actually build inside the pbuilder chroot:
root:/build/biosig4c++-1.9.5# find . -name "*.so"
./libgdf.so
./libphysicalunits.so
./libbiosig.so
./debian/tmp/usr/lib/x86_64-linux-gnu/libbiosig.so
./debian/tmp/usr/lib/x86_64-linux-gnu/libbiosig2.so
Any idea how to convince pkgconfig that the library is there?
Kind regards
Andreas.
[1] https://salsa.debian.org/neurodebian-team/biosig4c
--
http://fam-tille.de
Re: About itsdangerous
Hi Julien! On Thu, Feb 27, 2020 at 05:02:32PM +0100, Julien Puydt wrote: > Le jeudi 27 février 2020 à 19:14 +0500, Andrey Rahmatullin a écrit : > > > https://alioth-archive.debian.org/git/collab-maint/python-itsdangerous.git.tar.xz > > > > I must be going through a very bad day, but trying to follow > https://wiki.debian.org/Salsa/AliothMigration#By_hand doesn't work ; > the two git checkout commands (both pristine-tar and upstream) give: > error: pathspec 'pristine-tar' did not match any file(s) known to git > > Are we sure the original git repository had the correct structure > anyway? Looking at that repo, it did not have the correct structure, but I think it makes sense to preserve its history anyway. I would do the following with branches: debian/unstable — rename to debian/master master-dfsg — rename to upstream Also update branch names in debian/gbp.conf accordingly. And gbp should create a pristine-tar branch when you update to a newer release. -- Dmitry Shachnev signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Re: About itsdangerous
On Thu, Feb 27, 2020 at 05:02:32PM +0100, Julien Puydt wrote: > > https://alioth-archive.debian.org/git/collab-maint/python-itsdangerous.git.tar.xz > > > > I must be going through a very bad day, but trying to follow > https://wiki.debian.org/Salsa/AliothMigration#By_hand doesn't work ; > the two git checkout commands (both pristine-tar and upstream) give: > error: pathspec 'pristine-tar' did not match any file(s) known to git > > Are we sure the original git repository had the correct structure > anyway? It indeed doesn't use pristine-tar. Its upstream branch is named master (as you can check in debian/gbp.conf) and looks like a clone of the upstream repo master branch. OTOH the last release there repacks the tarball and so uses the master-dfsg branch instead. -- WBR, wRAR signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Re: About itsdangerous
Le jeudi 27 février 2020 à 19:14 +0500, Andrey Rahmatullin a écrit : > https://alioth-archive.debian.org/git/collab-maint/python-itsdangerous.git.tar.xz > I must be going through a very bad day, but trying to follow https://wiki.debian.org/Salsa/AliothMigration#By_hand doesn't work ; the two git checkout commands (both pristine-tar and upstream) give: error: pathspec 'pristine-tar' did not match any file(s) known to git Are we sure the original git repository had the correct structure anyway? JP
Re: About itsdangerous
On Thu, Feb 27, 2020 at 12:57:49PM +0100, Julien Puydt wrote: > Le jeudi 27 février 2020 à 15:49 +0500, Andrey Rahmatullin a écrit : > > On Thu, Feb 27, 2020 at 11:33:00AM +0100, Julien Puydt wrote: > > > Hi, > > > > > > I saw python3-itsdangerous was far behind upstream, and decided to > > > if > > > it was easy to update : but it's not on salsa. > > > > > > Should I import the last known package version (recent upload to > > > remove > > > the Python 2 package) to a new salsa repository and start from > > > here? > > I think you should import the alioth backup and import the last > > upload on > > top of it. > > Hmmm... I searched for "itsdangerous": > - on salsa ( > https://salsa.debian.org/search?utf8=%E2%9C%93=itsdangerous_id=_id=_ref=_source=navbar > ) : nothing > - on https://alioth-archive.debian.org/git/ : nothing https://alioth-archive.debian.org/git/collab-maint/python-itsdangerous.git.tar.xz -- WBR, wRAR signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Re: About itsdangerous
Le jeudi 27 février 2020 à 15:49 +0500, Andrey Rahmatullin a écrit : > On Thu, Feb 27, 2020 at 11:33:00AM +0100, Julien Puydt wrote: > > Hi, > > > > I saw python3-itsdangerous was far behind upstream, and decided to > > if > > it was easy to update : but it's not on salsa. > > > > Should I import the last known package version (recent upload to > > remove > > the Python 2 package) to a new salsa repository and start from > > here? > I think you should import the alioth backup and import the last > upload on > top of it. Hmmm... I searched for "itsdangerous": - on salsa ( https://salsa.debian.org/search?utf8=%E2%9C%93=itsdangerous_id=_id=_ref=_source=navbar ) : nothing - on https://alioth-archive.debian.org/git/ : nothing Is there some other place where I could have a look? JP
Re: About itsdangerous
On Thu, Feb 27, 2020 at 11:33:00AM +0100, Julien Puydt wrote: > Hi, > > I saw python3-itsdangerous was far behind upstream, and decided to if > it was easy to update : but it's not on salsa. > > Should I import the last known package version (recent upload to remove > the Python 2 package) to a new salsa repository and start from here? I think you should import the alioth backup and import the last upload on top of it. -- WBR, wRAR signature.asc Description: PGP signature
About itsdangerous
Hi, I saw python3-itsdangerous was far behind upstream, and decided to if it was easy to update : but it's not on salsa. Should I import the last known package version (recent upload to remove the Python 2 package) to a new salsa repository and start from here? Cheers, JP
