Bug#825276: openjfx: FTBFS when built with dpkg-buildpackage -A (dh_install: Cannot find "build/javadoc/*")

[gregor herrmann]

On Thu, 14 Jul 2016 15:56:57 +0200, Emmanuel Bourg wrote:

> > If you were able to provide all the "Arch: any" binary packages, failure
> > to build in the official autobuilders would not be serious, then?
> At this point this becomes too theoretical, what you describe here is
> not what a DD usually do. I prefer to remain on the practical side and
> observe than uploading arch indep packages is common, while uploading
> all arch any packages is not.
> -A failures have no impact because the arch all packages are already
> built by the DD. 

I slightly disagree. Since source-only uploads are available (August
2015 also for arch:all package), I and many other pkg-perl members
only do source-only uploads to finally (!) get the advantage of a
rebuild by a build daemon.

> -B failures have a real impact because it renders the
> package unavailable on the architectures other than the one used by the
> DD. Hence the different severity between -A and -B failures.
> So let's remain pragmatic and call "serious" something that is really
> serious for our users.

True, but this also means that users might get packages which are
built in a potentially unclean environment, which is something we
should try to get rid of.
 
(I have no strong optionion about this specific package or its bug
severity but in general I think we should move to source-only uploads
rather sooner than later.)


Cheers,
gregor

-- 
 .''`.  Homepage https://info.comodo.priv.at/ - OpenPGP key 0xBB3A68018649AA06
 : :' : Debian GNU/Linux user, admin, and developer -  https://www.debian.org/
 `. `'  Member of VIBE!AT & SPI, fellow of the Free Software Foundation Europe
   `-   NP: Steppenwolf: Everybody's Next One


signature.asc
Description: Digital Signature
__
This is the maintainer address of Debian's Java team
. 
Please use
debian-j...@lists.debian.org for discussions and questions.

Bug#825276: openjfx: FTBFS when built with dpkg-buildpackage -A (dh_install: Cannot find "build/javadoc/*")

[Santiago Vila]

On Thu, 14 Jul 2016, Emmanuel Bourg wrote:

> openjfx builds fine with "dpkg-buildpackage"

But there is not a way to tell the official autobuilders that they
do "dpkg-buildpackage" alone. They always do either -A or -B, so no,
it does not build fine as far as the official autobuilders is concerned.

For the record: The security team does source-only uploads as a normal
thing, so in some sense they are already mandatory for them.


In either case, there is little point in discussing about this being
or not RC for stretch in this particular bug report. If you don't like
this to be a release goal for stretch, you should really talk to the
Release Managers.

This is the relevant bug if you are interested:

https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=830997

However, before doing so, please consider the following:

We can make this a release goal now, or we can wait for the stable
release after stretch, i.e. about two years from now.

There are more than 23700 source packages in the archive. Of those,
only 100 source packages are affected by this, and from those only 62
do not have a patch available. The number of "key packages" affected
is less than 24.

With all this I mean that the "right time" to make this issue RC is
probably now, for stretch, not in two years.

Sorry if I did not convince you. You can still try discussing with the
Release Managers if you wish, but if I were you, I would just make an
upload for openjfx and forget about the issue. Or maybe wait a week
for the severity to be raised. Or maybe even wait until the last minute
before the autoremoval from testing.

Even if the package is big (about 100MB), I believe that snapshot.debian.org
can deal with a package like that every few months without problems.

And, if you are worried about your own bandwidth, remember that you
can make a source-only upload with "dpkg-buildpackage -S".

Thanks.

P.S. It has been nice to discuss with you, but please talk to the
Release Managers, not to me. Really :-)

__
This is the maintainer address of Debian's Java team
. 
Please use
debian-j...@lists.debian.org for discussions and questions.

Bug#825276: openjfx: FTBFS when built with dpkg-buildpackage -A (dh_install: Cannot find "build/javadoc/*")

[Emmanuel Bourg]

Le 14/07/2016 à 16:46, Santiago Vila a écrit :

> Not exactly. This issue is really about packages failing in the "Arch: all"
> autobuilder, or, in other words, "packages which may not be uploaded
> in source-only form".

Indeed, and source-only uploads are not mandatory, so this type of issue
shouldn't be declared "serious".


> Following your reasoning, this plain old FTBFS would not have to
> be serious at all, because "since the maintainer already provides
> the .deb packages, there is nothing to worry about".

No that's different, because in this case "dpkg-buildpackage" *and*
"dpkg-buildpackage -A" fail, the package is completely unbuildable
whatever options you use and this is a serious issue. openjfx builds
fine with "dpkg-buildpackage". That's what a user modifying and
rebuilding the package would typically use.

__
This is the maintainer address of Debian's Java team
. 
Please use
debian-j...@lists.debian.org for discussions and questions.

Bug#825276: openjfx: FTBFS when built with dpkg-buildpackage -A (dh_install: Cannot find "build/javadoc/*")

[Santiago Vila]

On Thu, 14 Jul 2016, Emmanuel Bourg wrote:

> > Or even better: Consider a source package which only builds "Arch: all"
> > binary packages. Suppose your package has a missing build-depends but
> > it builds ok in your computer because you have installed the
> > build-dependency in your chroot. Since you provide all the "Arch: all"
> > packages, would it be ok not to consider the FTBFS in an official
> > autobuilder as serious?
> 
> I agree but that's a different case, this is just a plain old FTBFS.
> This issue is about "dpkg-buildpackage" working but not
> "dpkg-buildpackage -A".

Not exactly. This issue is really about packages failing in the "Arch: all"
autobuilder, or, in other words, "packages which may not be uploaded
in source-only form". This includes not only source packages
generating both "Arch: all" and "Arch: any" packages (which I usually test)
but also source packages which only generate "Arch: all" packages
(which I don't test because people from reproducible builds already
test them).

Following your reasoning, this plain old FTBFS would not have to
be serious at all, because "since the maintainer already provides
the .deb packages, there is nothing to worry about".

See what I mean? The same logic you want to apply to some packages
would make bugs which we already consider serious not to be serious
anymore.

Thanks.

__
This is the maintainer address of Debian's Java team
. 
Please use
debian-j...@lists.debian.org for discussions and questions.

Bug#825276: openjfx: FTBFS when built with dpkg-buildpackage -A (dh_install: Cannot find "build/javadoc/*")

[Emmanuel Bourg]

Le 14/07/2016 à 15:07, Santiago Vila a écrit :

> What you call "binary upload" is mostly an upload which includes all
> the "Arch: all" binary packages.

Yes


> If you were able to provide all the "Arch: any" binary packages, failure
> to build in the official autobuilders would not be serious, then?

At this point this becomes too theoretical, what you describe here is
not what a DD usually do. I prefer to remain on the practical side and
observe than uploading arch indep packages is common, while uploading
all arch any packages is not.

-A failures have no impact because the arch all packages are already
built by the DD. -B failures have a real impact because it renders the
package unavailable on the architectures other than the one used by the
DD. Hence the different severity between -A and -B failures.

So let's remain pragmatic and call "serious" something that is really
serious for our users.


> Or even better: Consider a source package which only builds "Arch: all"
> binary packages. Suppose your package has a missing build-depends but
> it builds ok in your computer because you have installed the
> build-dependency in your chroot. Since you provide all the "Arch: all"
> packages, would it be ok not to consider the FTBFS in an official
> autobuilder as serious?

I agree but that's a different case, this is just a plain old FTBFS.
This issue is about "dpkg-buildpackage" working but not
"dpkg-buildpackage -A".

__
This is the maintainer address of Debian's Java team
. 
Please use
debian-j...@lists.debian.org for discussions and questions.

Bug#825276: openjfx: FTBFS when built with dpkg-buildpackage -A (dh_install: Cannot find "build/javadoc/*")

[Santiago Vila]

On Thu, 14 Jul 2016, Emmanuel Bourg wrote:

> Le 14/07/2016 à 14:08, Santiago Vila a écrit :
> 
> > Would you apply the same reasoning to a package which fails to
> > build from source in every arch-dependent autobuilder but still builds
> > fine without the -B flag?
> 
> No I wouldn't but that's a different case.
> 
> If I build on amd64 and do a binary upload I can't ignore build failures
> with -B, because the package won't be available on the other
> architectures and that's indeed a serious issue impacting the users. On
> the other hand, if -A fails I'm still able to upload the architecture
> independent packages and there is no impact for the users.
> 
> -A failures are only relevant for source only uploads, and as long as
> they aren't mandatory I don't think this kind of issue should have a
> severity higher than important.

What you call "binary upload" is mostly an upload which includes all
the "Arch: all" binary packages.

If you were able to provide all the "Arch: any" binary packages, failure
to build in the official autobuilders would not be serious, then?

Consider a package which is both Linux and Intel specific, only
buildable in amd64 and i386. With a little bit of trickery, you could
make an upload including all the required packages even if they fail
in the official autobuilders. Would this be ok? I don't think so.

Or even better: Consider a source package which only builds "Arch: all"
binary packages. Suppose your package has a missing build-depends but
it builds ok in your computer because you have installed the
build-dependency in your chroot. Since you provide all the "Arch: all"
packages, would it be ok not to consider the FTBFS in an official
autobuilder as serious? I don't think so either.

Thanks.

__
This is the maintainer address of Debian's Java team
. 
Please use
debian-j...@lists.debian.org for discussions and questions.

Bug#825276: openjfx: FTBFS when built with dpkg-buildpackage -A (dh_install: Cannot find "build/javadoc/*")

[Emmanuel Bourg]

Le 14/07/2016 à 14:08, Santiago Vila a écrit :

> Would you apply the same reasoning to a package which fails to
> build from source in every arch-dependent autobuilder but still builds
> fine without the -B flag?

No I wouldn't but that's a different case.

If I build on amd64 and do a binary upload I can't ignore build failures
with -B, because the package won't be available on the other
architectures and that's indeed a serious issue impacting the users. On
the other hand, if -A fails I'm still able to upload the architecture
independent packages and there is no impact for the users.

-A failures are only relevant for source only uploads, and as long as
they aren't mandatory I don't think this kind of issue should have a
severity higher than important.

__
This is the maintainer address of Debian's Java team
. 
Please use
debian-j...@lists.debian.org for discussions and questions.

Bug#825276: openjfx: FTBFS when built with dpkg-buildpackage -A (dh_install: Cannot find "build/javadoc/*")

[Santiago Vila]

On Thu, 14 Jul 2016, Emmanuel Bourg wrote:

> Le 14/07/2016 à 12:23, Santiago Vila a écrit :
> 
> > So there should not be a problem with this bug being serious and no
> > upload happening immediately, because you have just shown that you are
> > not MIA.
> 
> Actually the problem with this bug being serious is that is will trigger
> the autoremoval of openjfx from testing. I don't think it's fair to
> remove packages from testing just because dpkg-buildpackage -A fails.
> The package is still buildable without the -A flag.

Hmm. A little bit of background:

Would you apply the same reasoning to a package which fails to
build from source in every arch-dependent autobuilder but still builds
fine without the -B flag? Surely not!

The requirement "packages must autobuild" has always been one of the
release goals. The only difference is that we have now an "Arch: all"
autobuilder, but IMHO such autobuilder should not be a second-class
citizen. They should be on the same level.

Thanks.

__
This is the maintainer address of Debian's Java team
. 
Please use
debian-j...@lists.debian.org for discussions and questions.

Bug#825276: openjfx: FTBFS when built with dpkg-buildpackage -A (dh_install: Cannot find "build/javadoc/*")

[Emmanuel Bourg]

Le 14/07/2016 à 12:23, Santiago Vila a écrit :

> So there should not be a problem with this bug being serious and no
> upload happening immediately, because you have just shown that you are
> not MIA.

Actually the problem with this bug being serious is that is will trigger
the autoremoval of openjfx from testing. I don't think it's fair to
remove packages from testing just because dpkg-buildpackage -A fails.
The package is still buildable without the -A flag.

__
This is the maintainer address of Debian's Java team
. 
Please use
debian-j...@lists.debian.org for discussions and questions.

Bug#825276: openjfx: FTBFS when built with dpkg-buildpackage -A (dh_install: Cannot find "build/javadoc/*")

[Santiago Vila]

On Thu, 14 Jul 2016, Emmanuel Bourg wrote:

> Le 13/07/2016 à 22:45, Santiago Vila a écrit :
> 
> > I have the ok from the Release Managers to consider this issue
> > as RC for stretch.
> > 
> > I'm going to wait a week before raising severities, but since this bug
> > is in pending state, I'd appreciate if you could make an upload
> > before that.
> 
> Hi,
> 
> Uploading now a fixed version of openjfx would just be a waste of
> bandwidth and space on the mirrors and snapshot.debian.org (about 155MB)
> and I'd like to avoid that. According to the Oracle release schedule
> OpenJFX should have two new releases before the freeze, so I'd prefer
> the severity to be only changed shortly before the freeze if a release
> didn't happen.

Hi.

My suggestion to make an upload was only to clean up the list of bugs
a little bit.

I will change all the severities at once, but I'd just like to point
out that this is (or will be) just a release goal for stretch, not a
security bug in stable or anything like that.

So there should not be a problem with this bug being serious and no
upload happening immediately, because you have just shown that you are
not MIA.

Thanks.

__
This is the maintainer address of Debian's Java team
. 
Please use
debian-j...@lists.debian.org for discussions and questions.

Bug#825276: openjfx: FTBFS when built with dpkg-buildpackage -A (dh_install: Cannot find "build/javadoc/*")

[Emmanuel Bourg]

Le 13/07/2016 à 22:45, Santiago Vila a écrit :

> I have the ok from the Release Managers to consider this issue
> as RC for stretch.
> 
> I'm going to wait a week before raising severities, but since this bug
> is in pending state, I'd appreciate if you could make an upload
> before that.

Hi,

Uploading now a fixed version of openjfx would just be a waste of
bandwidth and space on the mirrors and snapshot.debian.org (about 155MB)
and I'd like to avoid that. According to the Oracle release schedule
OpenJFX should have two new releases before the freeze, so I'd prefer
the severity to be only changed shortly before the freeze if a release
didn't happen.

Emmanuel Bourg

__
This is the maintainer address of Debian's Java team
. 
Please use
debian-j...@lists.debian.org for discussions and questions.

Bug#825276: openjfx: FTBFS when built with dpkg-buildpackage -A (dh_install: Cannot find "build/javadoc/*")

[Santiago Vila]

Greetings.

I have the ok from the Release Managers to consider this issue
as RC for stretch.

I'm going to wait a week before raising severities, but since this bug
is in pending state, I'd appreciate if you could make an upload
before that.

Thanks.

__
This is the maintainer address of Debian's Java team
. 
Please use
debian-j...@lists.debian.org for discussions and questions.

Processed: Re: Bug#825276: openjfx: FTBFS when built with dpkg-buildpackage -A (dh_install: Cannot find "build/javadoc/*")

[Debian Bug Tracking System]

Processing control commands:

> tags -1 + pending
Bug #825276 [src:openjfx] openjfx: FTBFS when built with dpkg-buildpackage -A 
(dh_install: Cannot find "build/javadoc/*")
Added tag(s) pending.

-- 
825276: http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=825276
Debian Bug Tracking System
Contact ow...@bugs.debian.org with problems

__
This is the maintainer address of Debian's Java team
. 
Please use
debian-j...@lists.debian.org for discussions and questions.

Bug#825276: openjfx: FTBFS when built with dpkg-buildpackage -A (dh_install: Cannot find "build/javadoc/*")

[Emmanuel Bourg]

Control: tags -1 + pending

Thank you for the report. I fixed it in the Git repository, it'll be
uploaded with the next update.

https://anonscm.debian.org/git/pkg-java/openjfx.git/commit/?id=764ef1e

__
This is the maintainer address of Debian's Java team
. 
Please use
debian-j...@lists.debian.org for discussions and questions.