Re: Bug#886968: btrfs-progs-udeb: depends on non-udeb: libzstd1
- Date: Fri, 20 Apr 2018 14:29:30 +0100
- From: Dimitri John Ledkov <xnox@xxxxxxxxxx>
- Subject: Re: Bug#886968: btrfs-progs-udeb: depends on non-udeb: libzstd1
On 18 April 2018 at 00:30, Cyril Brulebois <kibi@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> Dimitri John Ledkov <xnox@xxxxxxxxxx> (2018-04-17):
>> First, I apologize for not responding to this email earlier, as I have
>> missed it in my mailbox.
> It's a mail from hours ago, so there's no apology needed.
>> 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
> [sentenced cut in the middle but] Yes, Helmut works quite a lot on
> crossbuilding and commits sitting in git master looked like what he was
> alluding to.
>> 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?"
> I suppose that's a fair way to word it. But I did mean to point out that
> packages having an impact on the installer should be reviewed by the
> installer team, at least for their initial addition; as I tried to make
> people aware a few times already (dda@, talks, replies to threads where
> udeb additions were mentioned, etc.); since that simple and natural
> process wasn't followed here, I did point that out.
>From my point of view, this is confusing... cause I regard myself as
being part of the installer team myself.
I guess you are advocating for general code review, more than two
pairs of eyes on things?
>> 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 didn't comment on the fact it should get accepted or rejected from
> NEW. People pointed me to the udeb addition that probably get some input
> from me, so I've briefly looked at it and spotted that issue.
Ok, fair enough.
I am still confused under what authority, assessment or criticality
previous upload was rejected by ftp-master. I shall pursue this with
@waldi - have you recently become an FTP-Master and I have missed the
E.g. even if shlibs were completely wrong, it is not something we are
unable to fix with regular follow-up uploads.
>> 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
>> generate dependencies.
>> 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
> I'm not sure why stashing a -V there once and for all to be future-proof
> wouldn't be adequate or desireable. People can argue all they like about
> whether the package is RC buggy in this specific revision, but it seems
> rather pointless, I really do care about mid/long-term maintenance. I
> have enough on my plate to not want to monitor such packages closely,
> and open a specific bug report in their next revision…
In absolute terms, it simply isn't, for debs. And only marginally
better for udebs.
>> This is no different to some other library udebs, e.g. liblzo2-2-udeb
> That's another perfect example why udeb additions should get reviewed:
> we would have noticed another buggy package, and its bugginess might not
> have been copied over to another package.
>> 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?
> I have done my share part of performing local builds and various
> combinations of udebs, and I never experienced this “immense amount of
The pain is specifically with pulling udeb builds of packages that
were done against newer glibc (e.g. in sid) into d-i that is based on
stable/testing. Whilst the builds of those packages do not require
newer glibc, they gain an artificially high dependency on glibc from
> Are you volunteering to introduce separate symbols support for udebs to
> all the required components and to maintain it over time?
I see that there might be a mapping issue between deb library names
and udeb library names. And i'm hoping a simple extension of the
.symbols file syntax should make it all work fine.
>> Based on all of the above, I believe libzstd1, and libzstd1-udeb are
>> both policy complaint as previously uploaded.
> I like the typo.
>> 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
> I'm not sure what the issue is with talking to the debian installer team
> when you're touching udeb packages and trusting their assessment?
The issue being, is that I regard myself as being part of the debian
installer team..... I am delusional?
Unless what you are in fact saying is actually "talk to Kibi".
> If someone wants to drive an effort to make -V a must for udebs in
> policy, that's probably fine. It doesn't strike me as ultimately needed
> (we've lived without it for quite some time because maintainers tend to
> just do the right thing), but if people have spare time, go for it.
-V a must for udebs would be bad, as that will never generate correct
dependencies. It at best can only set an inflated minimum version,
without a correct upper bound.
symbols support should be there for udebs
and -V should just die.