Bug#1021821: systemd: FTBFS with stage1 profile

2022-10-17 Thread Michael Biebl

Am 16.10.22 um 19:25 schrieb Niels Thykier:

On Sat, 15 Oct 2022 14:28:12 +0200 Michael Biebl  wrote:


Given that dh-exec is basically unmaintained, I'm a bit reluctant to 
switch to it.


The dh-exec package has a maintainer again. (I think this was mentioned 
on IRC as well - repeating here for completeness)


Could you raise this with Niels/debhelper: I do think we need better 
support for build profiles in dh_install.


Personally, I think dh-exec does a great job at providing filters (among 
other features) to debhelper configuration files and I am not currently 
not considering to absorbing them into debhelper itself.


If Niels is happy with dh-exec, then I'm ok with it as well.

Regards,
Michael



OpenPGP_signature
Description: OpenPGP digital signature


Re: Bug#1021821: systemd: FTBFS with stage1 profile

2022-10-17 Thread Luca Boccassi
> > > What happens to break is missing files in dh_install. Clearly,
> the
> > > intention was not to include cryptsetup plugins in stage1 and I
> agree
> > > with that. Unfortunately, dh_install itself does not allow
> > > conditionalizing lines in .install files. I'm attaching a patch
> that
> > > uses dh-exec to achieve this and hope you like it. If not, maybe
> we can
> > > install the plugins from debian rules manually?
> > 
> > Given that dh-exec is basically unmaintained, I'm a bit reluctant
> to switch
> > to it.
> 
> I've gone the easier route of proposing a different patch. It may not
> be
> as pretty, but it works today and looks reasonably maintainable to
> me.

Given Niels confirmed dh-exec is now maintained, I'd prefer using it
rather than doing things manually in d/rules.

-- 
Kind regards,
Luca Boccassi


signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part


Bug#1021821: systemd: FTBFS with stage1 profile

2022-10-17 Thread Helmut Grohne
Hi Michael,

On Sat, Oct 15, 2022 at 02:28:12PM +0200, Michael Biebl wrote:
> > the addition of cryptsetup plugins broke the stage1 build. Do you think
> > it would be possible to add a native stage1 build pass to salsa-ci such
> > that you'd notice earlier? Of course you'd only get the failure then,
> > not the patch. ;)

In your other mail, you asked about how to do this. I looked into
salsa-ci and no, there is no easy way to just do this. It completely
ignores build profiles. I think this will have to be fixed at salsa-ci
level even just for noticing nocheck ftbfs that will become RC after
bookworm.

Deferred.

> > What happens to break is missing files in dh_install. Clearly, the
> > intention was not to include cryptsetup plugins in stage1 and I agree
> > with that. Unfortunately, dh_install itself does not allow
> > conditionalizing lines in .install files. I'm attaching a patch that
> > uses dh-exec to achieve this and hope you like it. If not, maybe we can
> > install the plugins from debian rules manually?
> 
> Given that dh-exec is basically unmaintained, I'm a bit reluctant to switch
> to it.

I've gone the easier route of proposing a different patch. It may not be
as pretty, but it works today and looks reasonably maintainable to me.

Helmut
diff --minimal -Nru systemd-251.6/debian/changelog 
systemd-251.6/debian/changelog
--- systemd-251.6/debian/changelog  2022-10-14 16:34:00.0 +0200
+++ systemd-251.6/debian/changelog  2022-10-17 08:45:37.0 +0200
@@ -1,3 +1,11 @@
+systemd (251.6-1.1) UNRELEASED; urgency=medium
+
+  * Non-maintainer upload.
+  * Conditionalize installation of cryptsetup plugins in stage1. (Closes:
+#1021821)
+
+ -- Helmut Grohne   Mon, 17 Oct 2022 08:45:37 +0200
+
 systemd (251.6-1) unstable; urgency=medium
 
   * New upstream version 251.6
diff --minimal -Nru systemd-251.6/debian/rules systemd-251.6/debian/rules
--- systemd-251.6/debian/rules  2022-10-14 16:34:00.0 +0200
+++ systemd-251.6/debian/rules  2022-10-17 08:45:37.0 +0200
@@ -217,6 +217,7 @@
# files shipped by cryptsetup
 ifeq (, $(filter stage1, $(DEB_BUILD_PROFILES)))
rm -f debian/tmp/usr/share/man/man5/crypttab.5
+   dh_install -psystemd 
debian/tmp/usr/lib/$(DEB_HOST_MULTIARCH)/cryptsetup 
usr/lib/$(DEB_HOST_MULTIARCH)
 endif
 
# files shipped by systemd
diff --minimal -Nru systemd-251.6/debian/systemd.install 
systemd-251.6/debian/systemd.install
--- systemd-251.6/debian/systemd.install2022-10-14 16:34:00.0 
+0200
+++ systemd-251.6/debian/systemd.install2022-10-17 08:45:32.0 
+0200
@@ -17,7 +17,6 @@
 usr/lib/systemd/
 usr/lib/tmpfiles.d/
 usr/lib/kernel
-usr/lib/*/cryptsetup/
 usr/share/bash-completion/
 usr/share/zsh/vendor-completions/
 usr/share/dbus-1/


Bug#1021821: systemd: FTBFS with stage1 profile

2022-10-16 Thread Niels Thykier

On Sat, 15 Oct 2022 14:28:12 +0200 Michael Biebl  wrote:

Am 15.10.22 um 14:01 schrieb Helmut Grohne:
> Source: systemd
> Version: 251.6-1
> Severity: important
> Justification: breaks architecture bootstrap
> Tags: ftbfs patch
> User: helm...@debian.org
> Usertags: rebootstrap
> 
> Hi,
> 
> the addition of cryptsetup plugins broke the stage1 build. Do you think

> it would be possible to add a native stage1 build pass to salsa-ci such
> that you'd notice earlier? Of course you'd only get the failure then,
> not the patch. ;)
> 
> What happens to break is missing files in dh_install. Clearly, the

> intention was not to include cryptsetup plugins in stage1 and I agree
> with that. Unfortunately, dh_install itself does not allow
> conditionalizing lines in .install files. I'm attaching a patch that
> uses dh-exec to achieve this and hope you like it. If not, maybe we can
> install the plugins from debian rules manually?

Given that dh-exec is basically unmaintained, I'm a bit reluctant to 
switch to it.


The dh-exec package has a maintainer again. (I think this was mentioned 
on IRC as well - repeating here for completeness)


Could you raise this with Niels/debhelper: I do think we need better 
support for build profiles in dh_install.


Personally, I think dh-exec does a great job at providing filters (among 
other features) to debhelper configuration files and I am not currently 
not considering to absorbing them into debhelper itself.


Thanks,
~Niels



Bug#1021821: systemd: FTBFS with stage1 profile

2022-10-15 Thread Michael Biebl

Am 15.10.22 um 14:01 schrieb Helmut Grohne:

the addition of cryptsetup plugins broke the stage1 build. Do you think
it would be possible to add a native stage1 build pass to salsa-ci such
that you'd notice earlier? 


Good idea, how can we do that?


OpenPGP_signature
Description: OpenPGP digital signature


Bug#1021821: systemd: FTBFS with stage1 profile

2022-10-15 Thread Michael Biebl

Am 15.10.22 um 14:01 schrieb Helmut Grohne:

Source: systemd
Version: 251.6-1
Severity: important
Justification: breaks architecture bootstrap
Tags: ftbfs patch
User: helm...@debian.org
Usertags: rebootstrap

Hi,

the addition of cryptsetup plugins broke the stage1 build. Do you think
it would be possible to add a native stage1 build pass to salsa-ci such
that you'd notice earlier? Of course you'd only get the failure then,
not the patch. ;)

What happens to break is missing files in dh_install. Clearly, the
intention was not to include cryptsetup plugins in stage1 and I agree
with that. Unfortunately, dh_install itself does not allow
conditionalizing lines in .install files. I'm attaching a patch that
uses dh-exec to achieve this and hope you like it. If not, maybe we can
install the plugins from debian rules manually?


Given that dh-exec is basically unmaintained, I'm a bit reluctant to 
switch to it.
Could you raise this with Niels/debhelper: I do think we need better 
support for build profiles in dh_install.


OpenPGP_signature
Description: OpenPGP digital signature


Bug#1021821: systemd: FTBFS with stage1 profile

2022-10-15 Thread Helmut Grohne
Source: systemd
Version: 251.6-1
Severity: important
Justification: breaks architecture bootstrap
Tags: ftbfs patch
User: helm...@debian.org
Usertags: rebootstrap

Hi,

the addition of cryptsetup plugins broke the stage1 build. Do you think
it would be possible to add a native stage1 build pass to salsa-ci such
that you'd notice earlier? Of course you'd only get the failure then,
not the patch. ;)

What happens to break is missing files in dh_install. Clearly, the
intention was not to include cryptsetup plugins in stage1 and I agree
with that. Unfortunately, dh_install itself does not allow
conditionalizing lines in .install files. I'm attaching a patch that
uses dh-exec to achieve this and hope you like it. If not, maybe we can
install the plugins from debian rules manually?

Helmut
diff --minimal -Nru systemd-251.6/debian/changelog 
systemd-251.6/debian/changelog
--- systemd-251.6/debian/changelog  2022-10-14 16:34:00.0 +0200
+++ systemd-251.6/debian/changelog  2022-10-15 07:32:34.0 +0200
@@ -1,3 +1,11 @@
+systemd (251.6-1.1) UNRELEASED; urgency=medium
+
+  * Non-maintainer upload.
+  * Conditionalize installation of cryptsetup plugins in stage1 using
+dh-exec. (Closes: #-1)
+
+ -- Helmut Grohne   Sat, 15 Oct 2022 07:32:34 +0200
+
 systemd (251.6-1) unstable; urgency=medium
 
   * New upstream version 251.6
diff --minimal -Nru systemd-251.6/debian/control systemd-251.6/debian/control
--- systemd-251.6/debian/control2022-10-14 16:34:00.0 +0200
+++ systemd-251.6/debian/control2022-10-15 07:31:23.0 +0200
@@ -14,6 +14,7 @@
 Vcs-Browser: https://salsa.debian.org/systemd-team/systemd
 Homepage: https://www.freedesktop.org/wiki/Software/systemd
 Build-Depends: debhelper-compat (= 13),
+   dh-exec,
dh-sequence-installnss,
dh-sequence-package-notes,
pkg-config,
diff --minimal -Nru systemd-251.6/debian/systemd.install 
systemd-251.6/debian/systemd.install
--- systemd-251.6/debian/systemd.install2022-10-14 16:34:00.0 
+0200
+++ systemd-251.6/debian/systemd.install2022-10-15 07:32:23.0 
+0200
@@ -1,3 +1,4 @@
+#!/usr/bin/dh-exec
 etc/
 bin/
 lib/modprobe.d/
@@ -17,7 +18,7 @@
 usr/lib/systemd/
 usr/lib/tmpfiles.d/
 usr/lib/kernel
-usr/lib/*/cryptsetup/
+ usr/lib/*/cryptsetup/
 usr/share/bash-completion/
 usr/share/zsh/vendor-completions/
 usr/share/dbus-1/