On Wed, Jul 13, 2011 at 06:28:53PM +0200, Thibaut VARENE wrote: > On Wed, Jul 13, 2011 at 6:05 PM, Roger Leigh <rle...@codelibre.net> wrote: > > On Wed, Jul 13, 2011 at 05:38:16PM +0200, Thibaut VARENE wrote: > > >> In any case, the fact is it breaks the virtual resolver for packages with > >> multiple providers (i've tested that when there's only one provider, there > >> is no problem. I suppose apt-get does > >> the right thing then). > > > > There are two areas of brokeness here: apt-get and sbuild itself. > > While apt-get is definitely misbehaving here, sbuild's "internal" > > resolver is also absolutely awful at working with virtual packages. > > While we did do some refactoring when introducing the "apt" resolver, > > it could well be that the root cause was apt-get being broken. > > You could try using the "apt" resolver which delegates all dependency > > resolution to apt-get. It's the default in current unstable, and > > can handle virtual dependencies without issues, including alternatives. > > So, I tried the 'aptitude' resolver, since I couldn't find any mention > of a 'apt' resolver in the source code (note by the way that as far as > I can tell, none of this is documented anywhere ;P) using the > following in .sbuildrc: > $build_dep_resolver="aptitude"; > > And it did "fix" the issue, while installing more stuff (aptitude) > into the chroot.
The "apt" resolver may not yet be available in stable. It's certainly in testing. And this should all be documented in the testing/unstable version in the sample sbuildrc and sbuild.conf. Just checked the changelog and the stable version does lack it. > > I would also suggest trying the latest sbuild/libsbuild-perl in > > testing/unstable. They should run without problems on squeeze by > > design. If the bugs are still causing problems with this version, > > we can at least address them whereas updating the squeeze version > > is rather more difficult. > > Well, given the lack of documentation, especially on upgrade process, > and my previous experience with generally painful upgrades from > version to version (0.60 entirely broke backward compatibility with > 0.58 configs), I'm not exactly thrilled by the idea... ;P In theory, we should be completely backward compatible--we continue to allow the use of older configuration variables in order to not break compatibility with older formats. If you are seeing breakage, I would appreciate knowing what's broken, so we can fix it. We have definitely made the config parser stricter though--it will now error out where it would previously continue e.g. if you misnamed a variable. And where we have removed configuration options, you might well be required to comment out/remove them from your configuration. But anything that's present in old and new versions should continue to work. If it doesn't, I'll fix it. Regards, Roger -- .''`. Roger Leigh : :' : Debian GNU/Linux http://people.debian.org/~rleigh/ `. `' Printing on GNU/Linux? http://gutenprint.sourceforge.net/ `- GPG Public Key: 0x25BFB848 Please GPG sign your mail.
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature