Re: Bug#583832: dulwich: FTBFS: FAILED (SKIP=2, errors=7)

2010-06-13 Thread Jakub Wilk 

# dulwich used to build fine on kfreebsd-*
severity 583832 serious
thanks

* Cyril Brulebois k...@debian.org, 2010-05-31, 00:01:

Source: dulwich
Version: 0.6.0-4
Severity: important
User: debian-bsd@lists.debian.org
Usertags: kfreebsd

Hi,

your package FTBFS on kfreebsd-i386 (but not kfreebsd-amd64) with:
| Ran 335 tests in 51.597s
| FAILED (SKIP=2, errors=7)


They all fail with the following traceback:

| Traceback (most recent call last):
|   File 
/build/buildd-dulwich_0.6.0-4-kfreebsd-i386-nJTtmQ/dulwich-0.6.0/dulwich/tests/compat/test_client.py,
 line 50, in setUp
| if check_for_daemon(limit=1):
|   File 
/build/buildd-dulwich_0.6.0-4-kfreebsd-i386-nJTtmQ/dulwich-0.6.0/dulwich/tests/compat/utils.py,
 line 163, in check_for_daemon
| s.connect(('localhost', port))
|   File string, line 1, in connect
| error: (22, 'Invalid argument')

I cannot reproduce these failures on my kfreebsd-i386 porterbox.

Dear debian-bsd@ readers: any ideas what's wrong here?

--
Jakub Wilk


signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Processed: Re: Bug#585767: Dependencies on linux-gnu or not+linux-gnu do not match armel or powerpcspe correctly

2010-06-13 Thread Debian Bug Tracking System 
Processing commands for cont...@bugs.debian.org:

 reassign 585767 type-handling 0.2.23
Bug #585767 [dpkg] Dependencies on linux-gnu or not+linux-gnu do not match 
armel or powerpcspe correctly
Bug reassigned from package 'dpkg' to 'type-handling'.
Bug No longer marked as found in versions dpkg/1.15.7.2.
Bug #585767 [type-handling] Dependencies on linux-gnu or not+linux-gnu do not 
match armel or powerpcspe correctly
Bug Marked as found in versions type-handling/0.2.23.
 thanks
Stopping processing here.

Please contact me if you need assistance.
-- 
585767: http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=585767
Debian Bug Tracking System
Contact ow...@bugs.debian.org with problems


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-bsd-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Archive: 
http://lists.debian.org/handler.s.c.12764563862526.transcr...@bugs.debian.org

Re: Bug#585767: Dependencies on linux-gnu or not+linux-gnu do not match armel or powerpcspe correctly

2010-06-13 Thread Raphael Hertzog 
reassign 585767 type-handling 0.2.23
thanks

Hi Kyle,

On Sun, 13 Jun 2010, Kyle Moffett wrote:
 Package: dpkg
 Version: 1.15.7.2
 Severity: important
 User: debian-powerpc...@breakpoint.cc
 Usertags: powerpcspe
 
 I'm actually a little unsure if this is a dpkg bug or a package bug, but
 I have had build failures from several packages which have Build-Depends
 like the following: (trimmed example from the gvfs-1.6.2-1 source package)
 
   libudev-dev (= 0.139) | not+linux-gnu,
   libfuse-dev | hurd,
   libhal-dev (= 0.5.10) | linux-gnu,
   libgdu-dev (= 2.29.0) | not+linux-gnu,
   libgudev-1.0-dev (= 001) | not+linux-gnu,
   libbluetooth-dev (= 4.0) | not+linux-gnu,
   libimobiledevice-dev (= 0.9.7) | hurd
 
 Unfortunately it seems like the powerpcspe and armel architectures
 do not provide the virtual packages linux-gnu and they do provide the
 virtual package not+linux-gnu, although if I change those deps to
 linux and not+linux then they behave as expected.
 
 This seems to be related to the fact that the triplettable entries for
 those architectures map them as linux-gnuspe and linux-gnueabi
 respectively, instead of linux-gnu.

Those virtual packages are provided by the type-handling packages so I
reassign it there if the provides are incorrect.

 On the other hand, I'm not entirely certain those package dependencies
 are compliant with current Debian Policy.  I believe those package
 dependencies should be written as follows:
 
   libudev-dev (= 0.139) [linux-any],
   libfuse-dev [!hurd-any],
   libhal-dev (= 0.5.10) [!linux-any],
   libgdu-dev (= 2.29.0) [linux-any],
   libgudev-1.0-dev (= 001) [linux-any],
   libbluetooth-dev (= 4.0) [linux-any],
   libimobiledevice-dev (= 0.97) [!hurd-any]
 
 So I guess the question is whether the linux-gnu vs. not+linux-gnu
 behavior is correct, or alternatively whether or not it violates policy.

You're right that it's best to use the real architectutre wildcards
nowadays (#530687 it will be in policy soon).

 If the latter, perhaps dpkg-buildpackage should be patched to issue very
 loud warnings when those dependencies are detected as they are known to
 have incorrect behaviour on some platforms.

That's rather a task for lintian.

Cheers,
-- 
Raphaël Hertzog

Like what I do? Sponsor me: http://ouaza.com/wp/2010/01/05/5-years-of-freexian/
My Debian goals: http://ouaza.com/wp/2010/01/09/debian-related-goals-for-2010/


--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-bsd-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Archive: http://lists.debian.org/20100613191231.gb17...@rivendell