Re: [Fedora-packaging] Re: Broken dependencies: vim-syntastic

[Pavel Raiskup]

On Monday, November 14, 2016 4:37:57 PM CET Peter Robinson wrote:
> On Mon, Nov 14, 2016 at 3:37 PM, Pavel Raiskup  wrote:
> > On Wednesday, September 21, 2016 12:55:48 PM CET Jason L Tibbitts III wrote:
> >> First off, the guidelines have:
> >> https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#Noarch_with_unported_dependencies
> >>
> >> I've been assuming that you're talking about the BuildRequires: case.
> >> If you're just talking about the case where you can build it anywhere
> >> because you're just copying files around, but it just won't install,
> >> then you can try doing the noarch/ExclusiveArch: trick.  To be fair, I
> >> have no idea if it still works; I recall that some people really didn't
> >> like it.  Of course if it doesn't work then I'll remove that bit from
> >> the guidelines.  I've sent out a couple of questions to folks who should
> >> know better than I.
> >
> > To close this for fedora-devel too, the ExclusiveArch trick probably
> > doesn't work at least in my case [1] because:
> >
> >   - I set ExclusiveArch for set of sub-packages only
> 
> Exclusive/Exclude arch only works for the whole package, not for sub
> packages, it's global to the extire spec.

Worth saying in Guidelines?  Because I was able to build package that did
have multiple ExclusiveArch tags (seemingly assigned to subpackages), and
toolchain did not complain.

Still, the guidelines suggest to put 'noarch' into ExclusiveArch which is
clearly a bad advice (and it took a really long debugging to understand
why).

> If you want to exclude package based on arch (why?)

Because some of the sub-packages don't have important Requires available
on some architectures.  See the thread.

> you need to do %ifarch conditionals for the sub package components.

Isn't truth that we build noarch packages on randomly chosen "primary"
architecture, and then distribute this noarch binary package to all
primary architectures?  Wouldn't that mean that if 'aarch64' was chosen for
build, the subpackage would be missing on all primary arches?

(OT: for some reason, secondary architectures re-build the noarch packages
separately for every architecture, but that might be just self-defensive
approach)

Pavel

> >   - I've added 'noarch' into ExclusiveArch, because of the bug 1298668
> > Orion mentioned.
> >
> > Can this be somehow reflected in guidelines [2]?  I don't really know how,
> > but at least in case of vim-syntastic -> I'm against adding ExclusiveArch
> > into vim-syntastic (that means if single _sub_package doesn't work on say
> > aarch64, every other sub-package will be excluded from aarch64).
> >
> > [1] https://pagure.io/pungi-fedora/issue/87
> > [2] https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines
> >
> > Pavel
> > ___
> > devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
> > To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
> ___
> devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
> To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
> 

___
devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org

Re: [Fedora-packaging] Re: Broken dependencies: vim-syntastic

[Peter Robinson]

On Mon, Nov 14, 2016 at 3:37 PM, Pavel Raiskup  wrote:
> On Wednesday, September 21, 2016 12:55:48 PM CET Jason L Tibbitts III wrote:
>> First off, the guidelines have:
>> https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#Noarch_with_unported_dependencies
>>
>> I've been assuming that you're talking about the BuildRequires: case.
>> If you're just talking about the case where you can build it anywhere
>> because you're just copying files around, but it just won't install,
>> then you can try doing the noarch/ExclusiveArch: trick.  To be fair, I
>> have no idea if it still works; I recall that some people really didn't
>> like it.  Of course if it doesn't work then I'll remove that bit from
>> the guidelines.  I've sent out a couple of questions to folks who should
>> know better than I.
>
> To close this for fedora-devel too, the ExclusiveArch trick probably
> doesn't work at least in my case [1] because:
>
>   - I set ExclusiveArch for set of sub-packages only

Exclusive/Exclude arch only works for the whole package, not for sub
packages, it's global to the extire spec. If you want to exclude
package based on arch (why?) you need to do %ifarch conditionals for
the sub package components.

>   - I've added 'noarch' into ExclusiveArch, because of the bug 1298668
> Orion mentioned.
>
> Can this be somehow reflected in guidelines [2]?  I don't really know how,
> but at least in case of vim-syntastic -> I'm against adding ExclusiveArch
> into vim-syntastic (that means if single _sub_package doesn't work on say
> aarch64, every other sub-package will be excluded from aarch64).
>
> [1] https://pagure.io/pungi-fedora/issue/87
> [2] https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines
>
> Pavel
> ___
> devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
> To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
___
devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org

Re: [Fedora-packaging] Re: Broken dependencies: vim-syntastic

[Pavel Raiskup]

On Wednesday, September 21, 2016 12:55:48 PM CET Jason L Tibbitts III wrote:
> First off, the guidelines have:
> https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#Noarch_with_unported_dependencies
> 
> I've been assuming that you're talking about the BuildRequires: case.
> If you're just talking about the case where you can build it anywhere
> because you're just copying files around, but it just won't install,
> then you can try doing the noarch/ExclusiveArch: trick.  To be fair, I
> have no idea if it still works; I recall that some people really didn't
> like it.  Of course if it doesn't work then I'll remove that bit from
> the guidelines.  I've sent out a couple of questions to folks who should
> know better than I.

To close this for fedora-devel too, the ExclusiveArch trick probably
doesn't work at least in my case [1] because:

  - I set ExclusiveArch for set of sub-packages only
  - I've added 'noarch' into ExclusiveArch, because of the bug 1298668
Orion mentioned.

Can this be somehow reflected in guidelines [2]?  I don't really know how,
but at least in case of vim-syntastic -> I'm against adding ExclusiveArch
into vim-syntastic (that means if single _sub_package doesn't work on say
aarch64, every other sub-package will be excluded from aarch64).

[1] https://pagure.io/pungi-fedora/issue/87
[2] https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines

Pavel
___
devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org

Re: [Fedora-packaging] Re: Broken dependencies: vim-syntastic

[Kalev Lember]

On 10/03/2016 08:53 AM, Pavel Raiskup wrote:
> Even more interesting, %arm is not on ExclusiveArch list for
> 'vim-syntastic-d' package, while the build on arm machine succeeded:
> http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=15919447

I drive-by fixed the ldc package on arm last night (I don't maintain
ldc), in case you want to update the ExclusiveArch list for
vim-syntastic-d. It's still missing on aarch64 though and needs more
work to bring it completely up to date.

https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2016-b869fe6f77

-- 
Kalev
___
devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org

Re: [Fedora-packaging] Re: Broken dependencies: vim-syntastic

[Pavel Raiskup]

On Monday, October 3, 2016 8:53:41 AM CEST Pavel Raiskup wrote:
> On Monday, October 3, 2016 8:12:50 AM CEST Pavel Raiskup wrote:
> > On Thursday, September 22, 2016 12:45:32 PM CEST Pavel Raiskup wrote:
> > > Thanks a lot for this discussion.  I'll go (probably) the hacky
> > > ExclusiveArch way, just because I want to give it a try.  Once this
> > > becomes too tiring (because the package has non-trivial amount of
> > > run-time-only dependencies), I'll talk to releng team.
> > 
> > The approach is here:
> > http://pkgs.fedoraproject.org/cgit/rpms/vim-syntastic.git/commit/?id=8f4bf0f6e30fa048bc8
> > 
> > One issue happened to me during the first build attempt -- aarch64 builder
> > was used while aarch64 was _not_ in all _sub_packages' ExclusiveArch:
> > http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=15918394
> > 
> > The second attempt on x86_64 has been successful:
> > http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=15918430
> > 
> > Is this related to?
> > https://pagure.io/koji/issue/19
> > 
> > What is the work-around?  Do I have to specify 'BuildArch: noarch' for all
> > subpackages (would that help)?  Do I have to try re-building until I get the
> > right machine?
> 
> Even more interesting, %arm is not on ExclusiveArch list for
> 'vim-syntastic-d' package, while the build on arm machine succeeded:
> http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=15919447
> 
> What is the reason to fail on aarch64 then?

Heh, here it comes :)

  | vim-syntastic has broken dependencies in the rawhide tree:
  | On aarch64:
  | vim-syntastic-lisp-3.7.0-8.fc26.noarch requires clisp
  | On aarch64:
  | vim-syntastic-d-3.7.0-8.fc26.noarch requires ldc
  | On armhfp:
  | vim-syntastic-d-3.7.0-8.fc26.noarch requires ldc
  | On aarch64:
  | vim-syntastic-cs-3.7.0-8.fc26.noarch requires mono-core
  | Please resolve this as soon as possible.

Seems like the ExclusiveArch for subset of sub-packages did not help at all.

Pavel
___
devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org

Re: [Fedora-packaging] Re: Broken dependencies: vim-syntastic

[Pavel Raiskup]

On Monday, October 3, 2016 8:12:50 AM CEST Pavel Raiskup wrote:
> On Thursday, September 22, 2016 12:45:32 PM CEST Pavel Raiskup wrote:
> > Thanks a lot for this discussion.  I'll go (probably) the hacky
> > ExclusiveArch way, just because I want to give it a try.  Once this
> > becomes too tiring (because the package has non-trivial amount of
> > run-time-only dependencies), I'll talk to releng team.
> 
> The approach is here:
> http://pkgs.fedoraproject.org/cgit/rpms/vim-syntastic.git/commit/?id=8f4bf0f6e30fa048bc8
> 
> One issue happened to me during the first build attempt -- aarch64 builder
> was used while aarch64 was _not_ in all _sub_packages' ExclusiveArch:
> http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=15918394
> 
> The second attempt on x86_64 has been successful:
> http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=15918430
> 
> Is this related to?
> https://pagure.io/koji/issue/19
> 
> What is the work-around?  Do I have to specify 'BuildArch: noarch' for all
> subpackages (would that help)?  Do I have to try re-building until I get the
> right machine?

Even more interesting, %arm is not on ExclusiveArch list for
'vim-syntastic-d' package, while the build on arm machine succeeded:
http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=15919447

What is the reason to fail on aarch64 then?

Pavel
___
devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org

Re: [Fedora-packaging] Re: Broken dependencies: vim-syntastic

[Pavel Raiskup]

On Thursday, September 22, 2016 12:45:32 PM CEST Pavel Raiskup wrote:
> Thanks a lot for this discussion.  I'll go (probably) the hacky
> ExclusiveArch way, just because I want to give it a try.  Once this
> becomes too tiring (because the package has non-trivial amount of
> run-time-only dependencies), I'll talk to releng team.

The approach is here:
http://pkgs.fedoraproject.org/cgit/rpms/vim-syntastic.git/commit/?id=8f4bf0f6e30fa048bc8

One issue happened to me during the first build attempt -- aarch64 builder
was used while aarch64 was _not_ in all _sub_packages' ExclusiveArch:
http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=15918394

The second attempt on x86_64 has been successful:
http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=15918430

Is this related to?
https://pagure.io/koji/issue/19

What is the work-around?  Do I have to specify 'BuildArch: noarch' for all
subpackages (would that help)?  Do I have to try re-building until I get the
right machine?

Pavel
___
devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org

Re: [Fedora-packaging] Re: Broken dependencies: vim-syntastic

[Jason L Tibbitts III]

> "PR" == Pavel Raiskup  writes:

PR> The design issue (probably hard to solve) is that there is no
PR> automatic way to _not_ include such package into particular ARCH yum
PR> repo; and we rather bother packagers.

I'm not entirely sure how the compose tools would that a particular
dependency issue is intentional.  I guess it could take a complete set
of all packages which have any ExcludeArch: or ExclusiveArch: tags and
chase the dependency tree of each backwards to see if it hits any of
those.  Which is certainly a nontrivial thing but I guess if someone
really wanted to write it

 - J<
___
devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org

Re: [Fedora-packaging] Re: Broken dependencies: vim-syntastic

[Pavel Raiskup]

On Wednesday, September 21, 2016 12:55:48 PM CEST Jason L Tibbitts III wrote:
> First off, the guidelines have:
> https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#Noarch_with_unported_dependencies
> 
> I've been assuming that you're talking about the BuildRequires: case.
> If you're just talking about the case where you can build it anywhere
> because you're just copying files around, but it just won't install,
> then you can try doing the noarch/ExclusiveArch: trick.  To be fair, I
> have no idea if it still works; I recall that some people really didn't
> like it.  Of course if it doesn't work then I'll remove that bit from
> the guidelines.  I've sent out a couple of questions to folks who should
> know better than I.

Thanks a lot for this discussion.  I'll go (probably) the hacky
ExclusiveArch way, just because I want to give it a try.  Once this
becomes too tiring (because the package has non-trivial amount of
run-time-only dependencies), I'll talk to releng team.

> > "PR" == Pavel Raiskup  writes:
> 
> PR> Understood why _usually_ do not permit them, but the fact we _never_
> PR> permit them sounds like not-yet-fixed design issue.
> 
> I can't imagine a situation where it would be acceptable for a user to
> type "dnf install foo" for something that's purely in Fedora and be
> greeted with an unsatisfied dependency error.  I just can't.

Yeah, me neither.  The thing is that it is unlikely anybody is going to
install that package there ... but yes, that might happen.

The design issue (probably hard to solve) is that there is no automatic
way to _not_ include such package into particular ARCH yum repo;  and we
rather bother packagers.

Thanks,
Pavel
___
devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org

Re: [Fedora-packaging] Re: Broken dependencies: vim-syntastic

[Jason L Tibbitts III]

First off, the guidelines have:
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#Noarch_with_unported_dependencies

I've been assuming that you're talking about the BuildRequires: case.
If you're just talking about the case where you can build it anywhere
because you're just copying files around, but it just won't install,
then you can try doing the noarch/ExclusiveArch: trick.  To be fair, I
have no idea if it still works; I recall that some people really didn't
like it.  Of course if it doesn't work then I'll remove that bit from
the guidelines.  I've sent out a couple of questions to folks who should
know better than I.

> "PR" == Pavel Raiskup  writes:

PR> Understood why _usually_ do not permit them, but the fact we _never_
PR> permit them sounds like not-yet-fixed design issue.

I can't imagine a situation where it would be acceptable for a user to
type "dnf install foo" for something that's purely in Fedora and be
greeted with an unsatisfied dependency error.  I just can't.

PR> That is not that trivial in case of this particular package, though.
PR> Removing the (sub)package is easier for me...  The "hack" you talk
PR> about ..

I have a difficult time believing that it would take longer than a
minute to remove some BuildArch: statements and add ExclusiveArch: where
necessary.

PR> .. would be about not tagging such packages into repos of affected
PR> architectures (that sounds wrong ..)?

You still have to make sure that the packages are actually built on
machines which can actually build the packages.  That's actually not the
same set of machines as the set of machines where the package would
run.  That's just something that needs to happen in the buildsystem.

PR> Can you point me to that discussion(s)?

The discussion has happened at various places over the history of the
project, back to when PPC or somesuch was added and had no JVM support.
In fact, I recall having a discussion about the true meaning of "noarch"
back in the FC2-timeframe, but I just don't have references going back
that far.  Again, feel free to raise it with the buildsys people; I
wouldn't be surprised if they have a canned response by now.

 - J<
___
devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org

Re: [Fedora-packaging] Re: Broken dependencies: vim-syntastic

[Pavel Raiskup]

On Wednesday, September 21, 2016 11:57:06 AM CEST Jason L Tibbitts III wrote:
> > "PR" == Pavel Raiskup  writes:
> 
> PR> Here comes the same argument as with ExclusiveArch .. I don't want
> PR> to, because this _is_ noarch package and _is_ expected to work on
> PR> all arches, at some point.
> 
> It's not noarch, sorry.  It doesn't work on all architectures,
> regardless of whether it has any compiled code.

Argh, yes.  I've updated my noarch definition.  "noarch" is not about content.

Sounds like there are two types of such noarch-looking non-noarch
packages :), first which is expected to work everywhere at some point and
the second where we know immediately that it will never work by it's
definition.

For the first type of package, using ExclusiveArch is really just ugly
work-around and additional work for packagers.

> PR> If I blacklist some arches today, I'll likely never enable the
> PR> package for the blacklisted architectures.
> 
> Nothing technical prevents you from doing so.  If the issue is whether
> you'll remember, I'm not sure what to suggest.  I have the same
> problem, but it's unrelated to packaging, so

Taking into account how easy (and consistent) is to remove that (sub)package,
I tend to do that instead now.  And that is :( in general, because that
package could be useful to someone.

I don't think this point is unrelated to packaging though ...  packaging tools
should protect packagers from doing mistakes.

> PR> Is it wrong to simply let things as are?  Does it hurt some process
> PR> in Fedora (except for additional traffic in my INBOX)?
> 
> Yes, people using those architectures will have a package they cannot
> install.  We don't permit such broken dependencies in the distribution.

Understood why _usually_ do not permit them, but the fact we _never_
permit them sounds like not-yet-fixed design issue.

> There has been talk before of some hack to make packages like this still
> pretend to be noarch, but since the proper solution is so simple (remove
> BuildArch: noarch and add ExclusiveArch:) there's not really been much
> incentive to implement it.

That is not that trivial in case of this particular package, though.
Removing the (sub)package is easier for me...  The "hack" you talk about
..

> I do see this become more of an issue with every new arch bringup unless
> they have rather complete coverage.  The mere presence of some minor
> architecture shouldn't force a bunch of packages to suddenly become
> archful.  Feel free to talk to the buildsys and releng folks about it
> (again).

.. would be about not tagging such packages into repos of affected
architectures (that sounds wrong ..)?  Can you point me to that
discussion(s)?

Thanks,
Pavel
___
devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org

Re: [Fedora-packaging] Re: Broken dependencies: vim-syntastic

[Jason L Tibbitts III]

> "PR" == Pavel Raiskup  writes:

PR> Here comes the same argument as with ExclusiveArch .. I don't want
PR> to, because this _is_ noarch package and _is_ expected to work on
PR> all arches, at some point.

It's not noarch, sorry.  It doesn't work on all architectures,
regardless of whether it has any compiled code.

PR> If I blacklist some arches today, I'll likely never enable the
PR> package for the blacklisted architectures.

Nothing technical prevents you from doing so.  If the issue is whether
you'll remember, I'm not sure what to suggest.  I have the same
problem, but it's unrelated to packaging, so

PR> Is it wrong to simply let things as are?  Does it hurt some process
PR> in Fedora (except for additional traffic in my INBOX)?

Yes, people using those architectures will have a package they cannot
install.  We don't permit such broken dependencies in the distribution.

There has been talk before of some hack to make packages like this still
pretend to be noarch, but since the proper solution is so simple (remove
BuildArch: noarch and add ExclusiveArch:) there's not really been much
incentive to implement it.

I do see this become more of an issue with every new arch bringup unless
they have rather complete coverage.  The mere presence of some minor
architecture shouldn't force a bunch of packages to suddenly become
archful.  Feel free to talk to the buildsys and releng folks about it
(again).  But the solution in your case is pretty obvious.

 - J<
___
devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org

Re: [Fedora-packaging] Re: Broken dependencies: vim-syntastic

[Pavel Raiskup]

On Wednesday, September 21, 2016 11:37:09 AM CEST Jason L Tibbitts III wrote:
> > "PR" == Pavel Raiskup  writes:
> 
> PR> What's should packager do in such case?  Recap: noarch package
> PR> depends on arch-dependant package, which is not available
> PR> everywhere.
> 
> Then the package is not noarch.  Make it archful, add ExcludeArch:
> appropriately.

Here comes the same argument as with ExclusiveArch .. I don't want to,
because this _is_ noarch package and _is_ expected to work on all arches,
at some point.

If I blacklist some arches today, I'll likely never enable the package for
the blacklisted architectures.

Is it wrong to simply let things as are?  Does it hurt some process in
Fedora (except for additional traffic in my INBOX)?

Pavel
___
devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org

Re: [Fedora-packaging] Re: Broken dependencies: vim-syntastic

[Jason L Tibbitts III]

> "PR" == Pavel Raiskup  writes:

PR> What's should packager do in such case?  Recap: noarch package
PR> depends on arch-dependant package, which is not available
PR> everywhere.

Then the package is not noarch.  Make it archful, add ExcludeArch:
appropriately.

 - J<
___
devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org