Hello Christian, Apologies for the delayed reply.
On Sunday 03 May 2015 04:51 AM, Christian Seiler wrote: > Package: open-iscsi > Version: 2.0.873+git0.3b4b4500-8 > > (I'm reporting this to keep track of the issue. I've found this by > chance while improving the packaging.) > > udebs are currently only built for select architectures. Unfortunately, > there are two separate lists that have gotten out of sync. > > The first list is in debian/control and tells Debian's build tools for > which architectures the udeb should be built at all. The list of > architectures there is: > > amd64 arm64 i386 ia64 mips mipsel powerpc s390x ppc64el ppc64 armhf > > The second list is in debian/rules. It is used to make the > determination whether to populate the udeb or not. That list only > contains the following architectures: > > amd64 arm64 i386 ia64 mips mipsel powerpc > > This means that for the following 4 architectures the udeb is built but > never populated during build: s390x ppc64el ppc64 armhf > > You can see that if you look at the package sizes for different > architectures: > https://packages.debian.org/unstable/open-iscsi-udeb > Most udebs are a few 100 K large, on those 4 archictectures they are > less than 1 K large (which is probably just useless metadata). > > @Ritesh: > > I've already fixed this in my local packaging (will push to git on > alioth soon), where I have gotten rid of the separate list in > debian/rules (making it impossible for the bug to resurface), but two > questions remain for me: > > 1. I think we should ask the release team to make a stable update for > Jessie's first point release, because this is really bad. The > installer won't be able to provide iSCSI on those 4 architectures > at all. > > If you agree, we should do an upload to unstable first with my > packaging changes that also fix the bug (we need to fix it in > unstable first before a PU will be accepted) and then prepare a > targeted fix for Jessie (by just adding the missing archs to > debian/rules). Normally I would not have suggested an unstable > upload so soon already (I would have liked to have more changes in > git beforehand), but this bug seems rather nasty to me. > > So if you are onboard, I'll run gbp dch on just my packaging > changes so far in unstable so that a finished -9 package is in git. > You can then do an unstable upload, I'll prepare a targeted upload > for Jessie, push that into git, ask the release team for approval > (which my guess is they'll grant for this type of bug) and then you > could upload the specifically fixed version to jessie-p-u. Yes. That is the right approach. Let's get it into Unstable. The stable team anyways would ask the same. > > 2. Is there a reason why the udeb is not Architecture: any instead of > the specific ones? I mean, the binaries are the same ones as in the > normal deb package (no separate build), so I don't see why one > needs this in the first place? Is this perhaps a relic from the > time where the package still built kernel modules? > > Because I'd really like to get rid of the specific architecture > list in general, that will reduce the maintenance burden in the > long run - so ideally I'd change that to any or linux-any or so. > > Thoughts? > > Christian > If memory serves me correct, the problem was that open-iscsi's dependency, scsi-modules, wasn't available on all arches in the installer. https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=759817 You should go through the bug report and then check the relevant subsystem's current status. -- Ritesh Raj Sarraf | http://people.debian.org/~rrs Debian - The Universal Operating System
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature