Your message dated Wed, 13 Mar 2024 22:29:55 +0100
with message-id <zfia001unk8n6...@ramacher.at>
and subject line Re: AW: AW: Bug#1064950: apache2: (Legacy?) "Depends:
apache2-data (= ${source:Version})," in debian/control breaks binNMU builds.
has caused the Debian Bug report #1064950,
regarding apache2: (Legacy?) "Depends: apache2-data (= ${source:Version})," in
debian/control breaks binNMU builds.
to be marked as done.
This means that you claim that the problem has been dealt with.
If this is not the case it is now your responsibility to reopen the
Bug report if necessary, and/or fix the problem forthwith.
(NB: If you are a system administrator and have no idea what this
message is talking about, this may indicate a serious mail system
misconfiguration somewhere. Please contact ow...@bugs.debian.org
immediately.)
--
1064950: https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=1064950
Debian Bug Tracking System
Contact ow...@bugs.debian.org with problems
--- Begin Message ---
Subject: apache2: (Legacy?) "Depends: apache2-data (= ${source:Version})," in
debian/control breaks binNMU builds.
Source: apache2
X-Debbugs-Cc: christof.warl...@siemens.com
Version: 2.4.57-2
Severity: serious
Justification: fails to build from source (but built successfully in the past)
Tags: patch ftbfs
Dear Maintainer,
(re)building apache2 as binNMU (i.e. with appending "+b<someNumber> to the
package version")
works, but installation of the resulting apache2 package fails due to the
following dependency
in debian/control:
Depends: apache2-data (= ${source:Version}),
It causes apt-get to look for the dependency "apache2-data" (= 2.4.57-2) which
does not exist
in the newly built packages. Instead, the dependency should be satisfied by
"apache2-data (= 2.4.57-2+b<someNumber>)".
The folliwing patch fixes the issue:
diff --git a/debian/control b/debian/control
index 2eddc60..31121fa 100644
--- a/debian/control
+++ b/debian/control
@@ -34,7 +34,7 @@ Rules-Requires-Root: binary-targets
Package: apache2
Architecture: any
Depends: apache2-bin (= ${binary:Version}),
- apache2-data (= ${source:Version}),
+ apache2-data (= ${binary:Version}),
apache2-utils (= ${binary:Version}),
lsb-base,
media-types,
Please consider applying the patch.
Best regards,
Christof Warlich
P.S.: Note that the information below, being produced by "reportbug", is
irrelevant as I executed "reportbug"
on WSL2 on Windows 10. The actual Debian version is "bookworm".
-- System Information:
Debian Release: bookworm/sid
APT prefers jammy-updates
APT policy: (500, 'jammy-updates'), (500, 'jammy-security'), (500, 'jammy'),
(100, 'jammy-backports')
Architecture: amd64 (x86_64)
Kernel: Linux 5.10.102.1-microsoft-standard-WSL2+ (SMP w/16 CPU threads)
Locale: LANG=C.UTF-8, LC_CTYPE=C.UTF-8 (charmap=UTF-8), LANGUAGE not set
Shell: /bin/sh linked to /usr/bin/dash
Init: systemd (via /run/systemd/system)
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
On 2024-03-04 12:33:39 +0000, Warlich, Christof wrote:
> Sebastian Ramacher wrote:
> > Christof Warlich wrote:
> > > If this assumption is true, then why is the Debian build system (i.e.
> > > dpkg-buildpackage) not smart enough to simply ignore an existing +bX
> > > extension for Architecture: all binary packages? IMHO, this would
> > > simplify matters, as it would have avoided the pitfall that I stumbled
> > > into altogether.
> >
> > binNMUs are handled a layer above. sbuild will pass the correct options to
> > dpkg-buildpackage to build binNMUs. If you are interested in having binNMU
> > builds for your own infrastructure, you'll probably need to take a look at
> > the sbuild source to see how it is implemented.
>
> Ok, so I'd better start using sbuild instead. Again, thanks for the valuable
> info and your time.
Closing this bug.
Cheers
--
Sebastian Ramacher
--- End Message ---
