Bug#1023386: pacman-package-manager: Please backport to bullseye-backports
Bonjour Ben, Le lun. 28 nov. 2022 à 17:36, Ben Westover a écrit : > > > I also reverted 2e079e6d because this change is not in 6.0.2-3. > > That commit was needed for the libraries to present the right version; > without it, the their Debian revision is -3 which conflicts with the > existing unstable/testing version of the package. That's why your upload > just got rejected. > Thanks, I realized that after uploading. Just re-uploaded with 2e079e6d. Best, Dyan
Bug#1023386: pacman-package-manager: Please backport to bullseye-backports
Bonjour Dylan, On 11/22/22 04:09, Dylan Aïssi wrote: > I just uploaded ppm 6.0.2-3~bpo11+1 to bullseye-backports with a delay of > 6 days to be sure 6.0.2-3 lands in bookworm first. > > I also reverted 2e079e6d because this change is not in 6.0.2-3. That commit was needed for the libraries to present the right version; without it, the their Debian revision is -3 which conflicts with the existing unstable/testing version of the package. That's why your upload just got rejected. Thanks, -- Ben Westover OpenPGP_signature Description: PGP signature
Bug#1023386: pacman-package-manager: Please backport to bullseye-backports
Bonjour Ben, I just uploaded ppm 6.0.2-3~bpo11+1 to bullseye-backports with a delay of 6 days to be sure 6.0.2-3 lands in bookworm first. I also reverted 2e079e6d because this change is not in 6.0.2-3. Best, Dylan
Bug#1023386: pacman-package-manager: Please backport to bullseye-backports
Bonjour Dylan, On 11/14/22 09:41, Dylan Aïssi wrote: >> I've elected to just build it with the nocheck profile. > > Currently, without adding at least python3-distutils (and maybe other?) in BD, > pcm fails at the dh_auto_configure step with: > >> ModuleNotFoundError: No module named 'distutils.core' >> ../meson.build:31:0: ERROR: >> ['/usr/bin/python3']> is not a valid python or it is missing setuptools >> dh_auto_configure: error: cd obj-x86_64-linux-gnu && LC_ALL=C.UTF-8 meson .. >> --wrap-mode=nodownload --buildtype=plain --prefix=/usr --sysconfdir=/etc >> --localstatedir=/var --libdir=lib/x86_64-linux-gnu -Dkeyringd > > This is easily reproducible with salsa-ci by setting RELEASE to > bullseye like I did here: >> https://salsa.debian.org/daissi/pacman/-/jobs/3514447 > > My point is this issue is hidden in sid because python3-distutils is > pulled by dependencies, > but it (or python3-all) must be added in the Build-Deps of pcm even > for sid. Moreover, > based on the meson.build, it looks like python3 is not an optional build-deps. Interesting, didn't show up with my local sbuild runs for my personal archive. I had unmodified backports build fine with a nodoc flag. But if I test nodoc with Salsa it fails as you showed me. Strange. Thanks, -- Ben Westover OpenPGP_signature Description: PGP signature
Bug#1023386: pacman-package-manager: Please backport to bullseye-backports
Bonjour Ben, Le sam. 12 nov. 2022 à 23:12, Ben Westover a écrit : > > Correct me if I'm wrong, but I that believe for backports, keeping it > minimally different from the original package is prioritized over things > like functional tests, docs, etc. That is correct. > Thus, instead of adding the necessary > dependencies and patching required to make the tests work on bullseye, > I've elected to just build it with the nocheck profile. Currently, without adding at least python3-distutils (and maybe other?) in BD, pcm fails at the dh_auto_configure step with: > ModuleNotFoundError: No module named 'distutils.core' > ../meson.build:31:0: ERROR: > ['/usr/bin/python3']> is not a valid python or it is missing setuptools > dh_auto_configure: error: cd obj-x86_64-linux-gnu && LC_ALL=C.UTF-8 meson .. > --wrap-mode=nodownload --buildtype=plain --prefix=/usr --sysconfdir=/etc > --localstatedir=/var --libdir=lib/x86_64-linux-gnu -Dkeyringd This is easily reproducible with salsa-ci by setting RELEASE to bullseye like I did here: > https://salsa.debian.org/daissi/pacman/-/jobs/3514447 My point is this issue is hidden in sid because python3-distutils is pulled by dependencies, but it (or python3-all) must be added in the Build-Deps of pcm even for sid. Moreover, based on the meson.build, it looks like python3 is not an optional build-deps. Best, Dylan
Bug#1023386: pacman-package-manager: Please backport to bullseye-backports
Bonjour Dylan, On 11/8/22 12:15 PM, Dylan Aïssi wrote: > Thanks for preparing the package. I tried to build it with gbp buildpackage > in a clean bullseye environment but it failed. It seems some build-deps are > missing from the control file. At least python3-distutils needs to be added > but > then it fails to build with another error. Can you take a look? Correct me if I'm wrong, but I that believe for backports, keeping it minimally different from the original package is prioritized over things like functional tests, docs, etc. Thus, instead of adding the necessary dependencies and patching required to make the tests work on bullseye, I've elected to just build it with the nocheck profile. Thanks, -- Ben Westover OpenPGP_signature Description: PGP signature
Bug#1023386: pacman-package-manager: Please backport to bullseye-backports
Hello Ben, Le jeu. 3 nov. 2022 à 18:54, Ben Westover a écrit : > > Thanks for the link. I have uploaded my backport to Mentors [1] for your > sponsorship, and it's also available in the debian/bullseye branch of my > package repo [2]. Can you provide DM access after it passes NEW? > Thanks for preparing the package. I tried to build it with gbp buildpackage in a clean bullseye environment but it failed. It seems some build-deps are missing from the control file. At least python3-distutils needs to be added but then it fails to build with another error. Can you take a look? Thanks, Dylan
Bug#1023386: pacman-package-manager: Please backport to bullseye-backports
Hello Dylan, On 11/3/22 10:30 AM, Dylan Aïssi wrote: > The backport will have to go through the backport NEW queue, so you > need a DD to sponsor the initial version. I can sponsor it if you > want, I just need a git repo with a backport branch to build it :-). > Meanwhile, you can request to have your uid in the backports Access > Control Lists [1] for future updates. Thanks for the link. I have uploaded my backport to Mentors [1] for your sponsorship, and it's also available in the debian/bullseye branch of my package repo [2]. Can you provide DM access after it passes NEW? Thanks, -- Ben Westover [1] https://mentors.debian.net/package/pacman-package-manager/ [2] https://salsa.debian.org/BenTheTechGuy/pacman/-/tree/debian/bullseye OpenPGP_signature Description: PGP signature
Bug#1023386: pacman-package-manager: Please backport to bullseye-backports
Hi, > It's certainly possible with little to no modification of the package, > as I have already backported pacman to bullseye in my personal repo [1]. > I could officially get it in Debian backports for bullseye once I learn > more about how the process works (I'm only a DM at the moment). The backport will have to go through the backport NEW queue, so you need a DD to sponsor the initial version. I can sponsor it if you want, I just need a git repo with a backport branch to build it :-). Meanwhile, you can request to have your uid in the backports Access Control Lists [1] for future updates. Best, Dylan [1] https://backports.debian.org/Contribute/
Bug#1023386: pacman-package-manager: Please backport to bullseye-backports
Hello Christopher, On 11/3/22 4:53 AM, Christopher Obbard wrote:> We need pacman to install packages inside the built image, which is only > available for >bookworm. Since it's not feasible to upgrade our container > images to bookworm as it's still testing, would it be possible to backport > pacman-package-manager to bullseye-backports? > > From a first look, it seems that it _should_ be simple enough if the package > is compatible with libssl-dev 1.1.1n (there is no version requirement in > meson.build), the other build-deps are already available in bullseye. It's certainly possible with little to no modification of the package, as I have already backported pacman to bullseye in my personal repo [1]. I could officially get it in Debian backports for bullseye once I learn more about how the process works (I'm only a DM at the moment). Thanks, -- Ben Westover [1] https://apt.benthetechguy.net OpenPGP_signature Description: PGP signature
Bug#1023386: pacman-package-manager: Please backport to bullseye-backports
Source: pacman-package-manager Version: 6.0.2-1 Severity: wishlist Dear Maintainer, In debos (https://github.com/go-debos/debos) we are enabling support for building Arch images. As part of Debos upstream, we ship a container based on Debian Bullseye which should support all of the features available in Debos. We need pacman to install packages inside the built image, which is only available for >bookworm. Since it's not feasible to upgrade our container images to bookworm as it's still testing, would it be possible to backport pacman-package-manager to bullseye-backports? >From a first look, it seems that it _should_ be simple enough if the package is compatible with libssl-dev 1.1.1n (there is no version requirement in meson.build), the other build-deps are already available in bullseye. Thank you for your consideration. -- System Information: Debian Release: bookworm/sid APT prefers unstable APT policy: (500, 'unstable') Architecture: amd64 (x86_64) Kernel: Linux 6.0.0-1-amd64 (SMP w/8 CPU threads; PREEMPT) Kernel taint flags: TAINT_WARN Locale: LANG=en_GB.UTF-8, LC_CTYPE=en_GB.UTF-8 (charmap=UTF-8), LANGUAGE=en_GB:en Shell: /bin/sh linked to /usr/bin/dash Init: systemd (via /run/systemd/system) LSM: AppArmor: enabled
