Re: Bug#886968: btrfs-progs-udeb: depends on non-udeb: libzstd1
- Date: Tue, 17 Apr 2018 22:52:18 +0100
- From: Dimitri John Ledkov <xnox@xxxxxxxxxx>
- Subject: Re: Bug#886968: btrfs-progs-udeb: depends on non-udeb: libzstd1
On 17 April 2018 at 19:01, Cyril Brulebois <kibi@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> Dimitri John Ledkov <xnox@xxxxxxxxxx> (2018-01-15):
>> On 15 January 2018 at 00:27, Cyril Brulebois <kibi@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>> > Hi,
>> > Cyril Brulebois <kibi@xxxxxxxxxx> (2018-01-12):
>> >> Your package is no longer installable (along with its rev-dep
>> >> partman-btrfs) because it now depends on libzstd1, which isn't
>> >> a udeb.
>> > It seems zstd is only an option for btrfs-progs, and I've just confirmed
>> > that setting --disable-zstd on the dh_auto_configure line lets btrfs-progs
>> > build just fine, without the libzstd1 dependency. As far as I can tell,
>> > there's no absolute need for this feature in d-i, and we could consider
>> > building the udeb without zstd support, instead of requesting the addition
>> > of a libzstd1-udeb. What do you think?
>> That's an oversight on my part. From the recovery point of view, it
>> would be desired to have zstd compression support built-into
>> btrfs-progs-udeb such that one can use d-i recovery mode to
>> backup/restore btrfs filesystems with zstd compression.
> Your unreviewed addition of udeb as seen in NEW (currently holding back
> Helmut's work as noticed on #debian-ftp) is broken. It's missing a
> Repeating the same request and piece of advice (since 2012 or so):
> please get udeb-related things reviewed by debian-boot@/me?
> Thanks already.
First, I apologize for not responding to this email earlier, as I have
missed it in my mailbox.
Secondly, my work has been blocked by this NEW processing too for
btrfs-progs. I'm not aware as to which Helmut's work was blocked,
could you please elaborate what Helmut is blocked on? And/or how can
libzstd/me help to unblock Helmut? -> is that about patches for
crossbuilding that are part of
Now to respond to your main inquiry. I find the tone of above message
unacceptable. It reads accusational to me, rather than inquisitive.
It would have been much better to state:
"I notice that a call to dh_makeshlibs does not pass the -V flag as it
is custom for many libraries. Why have you not specified a minimum
required version in this case?"
It also feels like you (or others who were made aware of this lack of
-V) possibly wanted to make this a bug report, and follow-on out of
band events made it seem like it was felt that it is RC buggy and
shouldn't clear NEW and/or migrate to testing if passed NEW. In that
case a new bug report should have been opened, with above request at
an RC priority.
I hope above is an adequate description, of the technical question you
are alluding to.
The proposed update that got rejected from NEW had
dh_makeshlibs -plibzstd1 --add-udeb=libzstd1-udeb
(I hope this is enough context from said upload, for more details see
tree at https://salsa.debian.org/med-team/libzstd/tree/50c4849ef0ea5d79d7d5f84fd0a46b6404a413eb)
Note, that libzstd1 provides a symbols file, therefore packages that
link against it, normally get the correct minimum version dependency
based on the symbols file.
Therefore lack of -V flag is irrelevant for the actual dependencies
generated on packages that link/depend on libzstd1.
However, it is good to point out at this time, that udeb version of
libraries do not currently ship or use symbols files at all to
But also note that since libzstd1-udeb is a brand new package, any
version of thereof would correctly and strictly satisfy any udeb
package that gains a dependency on it. There are no linking or
dependency bugs in above libzstd1, nor udeb edition of the binary
This is no different to some other library udebs, e.g. liblzo2-2-udeb
Personally, I find it odd to have minimum -V arg version dependencies
for udebs only, when symbols are present for the deb edition of the
library. For example, btrfs-progs depends on libc6 (>= 2.8), yet
btrfs-progs-udeb depends on libc6-udeb (>= 2.27). This causes an
immense amount of pain, when rebuilding packages locally, mixing &
matching packages when debugging issues in d-i, and does not at all
correctly generate private dependencies for udebs that use e.g.
@GLIBC_PRIVATE and thus require libc6-udeb (>> 2.27), libc6-udeb (<<
2.28) style dependency instead. I'm not sure where/how .symbols should
be used or shipped, to start generate genuinely correct version
dependencies for udebs across the board. Debhelper? Dpkg?
Based on all of the above, I believe libzstd1, and libzstd1-udeb are
both policy complaint as previously uploaded.
If you are still concerned about minimum version dependencies which
are generated by packages that build/link/gain dependency on libzstd1
and/or libzstd1-udeb, I welcome you, ftp masters, or anybody else to
open a new (or clone this) bug report against libzstd for
consideration. I also welcome references from the Debian Policy to
educate myself further about library dependencies, and if and how,
this package is not policy complaint and pointers on how to best fix