Bug#666834: Test rebuild of your package libapache-mod-musicindex
tags 666834 + patch
thanks
Hi Thibaut,
you will find attached below a patch porting your module to Apache2 2.4.
Please test it and consider its inclusion. Note, I hardly tried more
than compiling and loading the module. I didn't test it in detail.
I've also fixed two problems while driving-by: You missed a
build-dependency against dpkg-dev 1.16.1 (that's the fist version to
support --export=configure) and a build-dependency against libapr1-dev.
The patch includes upstream changes, too. Given you are upstream you
might judge yourself whether it's suitable to you. Besides I consider
the whole patch mostly a proof of concept.
Pretty sure I saw a debian wiki page or other debian page stating that
2.4 wasn't due for Wheezy, but it seems I can't find it anymore. Last
minute transition seems like added fun.
Well, it's not exactly last minute. We announced the transition in March
already [1].
Practical question: how am I supposed to upload a package that can be
built either against 2.2 or 2.4 now that you have removed the
apache2-dev package from 2.4? I've modified my source to build against
2.4 and it also supports (from the same source, 1.3 (yes!), 2.0 and
2.2).
I guess you meant vice versa, we dropped apache2-dev from the 2.2
package (which was a virtual package in 2.2). I am not sure whether
there is a way to support both, a 2.2 module and a 2.4 module from the
same source package. There are quite orthogonal changes regarding binary
package dependencies and maintainer scripts. I guess one could figure
something, but at least from our side no further support is approached.
At least from our side we do not plan to support more than one major web
server in Debian at the same time.
If you can or want to make sure the binary dependencies end up right
(apache2.2-bin for 2.2 packages, apache2-api-20120211 for 2.4 packages;
a2enmod/a2dismod for 2.2 maintainer script, maintscript-helper for 2.4
packages), it would possible to support both. Likewise for
build-dependencies, but note Debian buildds do not resolve alternative
build-dependencies in the form a | b.
[1] https://lists.debian.org/debian-devel-announce/2012/03/msg00013.html
--
with kind regards,
Arno Töll
IRC: daemonkeeper on Freenode/OFTC
GnuPG Key-ID: 0x9D80F36D
debian/control |6 +++--
debian/libapache2-mod-musicindex.apache2 |3 +++
debian/libapache2-mod-musicindex.install |3 ---
debian/patches/port-to-apache24 | 38 ++
debian/patches/series|1 +
debian/rules |1 +
debian/source/options|1 +
7 files changed, 48 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-)
diff --git a/debian/control b/debian/control
index fe7418c..9d9f17d 100644
--- a/debian/control
+++ b/debian/control
@@ -2,13 +2,15 @@ Source: libapache-mod-musicindex
Section: httpd
Priority: optional
Maintainer: Thibaut VARENE vare...@debian.org
-Build-Depends: debhelper ( 7.0.0), apache2-threaded-dev, libvorbis-dev, libid3tag0-dev, libmad0-dev, libflac-dev, libarchive-dev, libmysqlclient-dev, libmp4v2-dev
+Build-Depends: debhelper ( 7.0.0), apache2-dev, libvorbis-dev,
+ libid3tag0-dev, libmad0-dev, libflac-dev, libarchive-dev, libmysqlclient-dev,
+ libmp4v2-dev, dh-apache2, libapr1-dev, dpkg-dev ( 1.16.1~)
Standards-Version: 3.9.3
Homepage: http://www.parisc-linux.org/~varenet/musicindex/
Package: libapache2-mod-musicindex
Architecture: any
-Depends: mod-musicindex-common (= ${source:Version}), apache2.2-common, ${shlibs:Depends}, ${misc:Depends}
+Depends: mod-musicindex-common (= ${source:Version}), ${misc:Depends}
Description: Browse, stream, download and search through MP3/Ogg/FLAC/MP4 files
mod_musicindex is aimed at being a C alternative to the Perl module
Apache::MP3 (http://search.cpan.org/dist/Apache-MP3/).
diff --git a/debian/libapache2-mod-musicindex.apache2 b/debian/libapache2-mod-musicindex.apache2
new file mode 100644
index 000..d08e0f1
--- /dev/null
+++ b/debian/libapache2-mod-musicindex.apache2
@@ -0,0 +1,3 @@
+mod debian/tmp/usr/lib/apache2/modules/*.so
+mod debian/musicindex.load
+mod debian/musicindex.conf
diff --git a/debian/libapache2-mod-musicindex.install b/debian/libapache2-mod-musicindex.install
deleted file mode 100644
index fc0c56f..000
--- a/debian/libapache2-mod-musicindex.install
+++ /dev/null
@@ -1,3 +0,0 @@
-debian/tmp/usr/lib/apache2/modules/*.so
-debian/musicindex.load etc/apache2/mods-available
-debian/musicindex.conf etc/apache2/mods-available
diff --git a/debian/patches/port-to-apache24 b/debian/patches/port-to-apache24
new file mode 100644
index 000..f395a7b
--- /dev/null
+++ b/debian/patches/port-to-apache24
@@ -0,0 +1,38 @@
+--- a/configure.ac
b/configure.ac
+@@ -101,8 +101,11 @@
+ printf(AP20\n);
+ #elif (MODULE_MAGIC_COOKIE == 0x41503232UL)
+ printf(AP22\n);
++#elif (MODULE_MAGIC_COOKIE 0x41503232UL)
++ printf(AP24\n);
+ #endif
+-}
++ }
++
+ _ACEOF
Bug#666834: Test rebuild of your package libapache-mod-musicindex
Hi, On Sun, May 6, 2012 at 10:34 PM, Arno Töll a...@debian.org wrote: tags 666834 + patch thanks Hi Thibaut, you will find attached below a patch porting your module to Apache2 2.4. Please test it and consider its inclusion. Note, I hardly tried more than compiling and loading the module. I didn't test it in detail. I've also fixed two problems while driving-by: You missed a build-dependency against dpkg-dev 1.16.1 (that's the fist version to support --export=configure) and a build-dependency against libapr1-dev. The patch includes upstream changes, too. Given you are upstream you might judge yourself whether it's suitable to you. Besides I consider the whole patch mostly a proof of concept. As I told you in my previous email which you quote just below, I had /already/ done the necessary upstream source changes. I'm sorry you wasted your time on this and I thank you for suggesting packaging changes anyway. Pretty sure I saw a debian wiki page or other debian page stating that 2.4 wasn't due for Wheezy, but it seems I can't find it anymore. Last minute transition seems like added fun. Well, it's not exactly last minute. We announced the transition in March already [1]. March 22 was like yesterday, apache-2.4 didn't get any extensive in-archive testing by virtue of not having hit unstable even yet, and I understand that Wheezy is to be released tomorrow. Unless that tomorrow turns out to be in a year, I guess that's pretty much a last minute change. Not that I care that much anyway, I've got a fairly strong impression of the modifications in Debian's overall quality and I'm adjusting to it, as far as I'm concerned :-P Practical question: how am I supposed to upload a package that can be built either against 2.2 or 2.4 now that you have removed the apache2-dev package from 2.4? I've modified my source to build against 2.4 and it also supports (from the same source, 1.3 (yes!), 2.0 and 2.2). I guess you meant vice versa, we dropped apache2-dev from the 2.2 package (which was a virtual package in 2.2). I am not sure whether there is a way to support both, a 2.2 module and a 2.4 module from the same source package. There are quite orthogonal changes regarding binary package dependencies and maintainer scripts. I guess one could figure something, but at least from our side no further support is approached. At least from our side we do not plan to support more than one major web server in Debian at the same time. If you can or want to make sure the binary dependencies end up right (apache2.2-bin for 2.2 packages, apache2-api-20120211 for 2.4 packages; a2enmod/a2dismod for 2.2 maintainer script, maintscript-helper for 2.4 packages), it would possible to support both. Likewise for build-dependencies, but note Debian buildds do not resolve alternative build-dependencies in the form a | b. My point was merely making my life and/or backports' life (and/or debian-based distros') easier by providing a package that, when built against either 2.4 (wheezy, as it seems) or 2.2 (squeeze) would not require any modification. It seems it won't be possible, as the package as per your own patch won't be buildable in squeeze and as building against apache-2.2 and apache-2.4 require conflicting build-deps (which is a departure from the previous 2.0 to 2.2 transition, iirc); well, so be it. I'll upload a new package when 2.4 hits unstable. T-Bone PS: CCing (instead of BCCing) cont...@debian.org is annoying when your recipient hits reply all. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-bugs-dist-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Bug#666834: Test rebuild of your package libapache-mod-musicindex
tags 666834 '+upstream' thanks Dear maintainer, this is a follow-up message to your Apache 2.4 transition bug for package libapache-mod-musicindex. We are approaching an upload of the web server to Debian's Unstable repository as soon as the release team acknowledges the upload. Along that upload we are planning to raise the importance of this bug to a release-critical severity. Please port your packages now to Apache 2.4. Below you can find a test-rebuild for your package for the 2.4 version of the Apache web server. Please note, even if the rebuild was successful, you still need to make changes in the Debian specific part of your package. The rebuild below was made by using a specially prepared build environment where these conditions where met: * We had apache2 and apache2-dev preinstalled * We provided a void apache2-threaded-dev and apache2-prefork-dev package to satisfy build-dependencies of your existing package (but this WILL NOT be the case in a real upload of the apache2 source package) * We prepared apxs to unconditionally inject -Werror=implicit-function-declaration to gcc to make sure we can spot the use of removed API calls (e.g. missing signatures for ap_* functions). Note, this might also cause false positives in some cases. These are the outcome criterias we defined: * VERIFIED-OK: The package rebuilt and linked successfully using the Apache 2.4 development headers. It still needs adapting to Debian package changes * VERIFIED-FAIL: The package does not rebuild successufully using the Apache 2.4 development headers. It may need some porting in the upstream code base * BYHAND: We may rebuild your package another time with manual interception. Not clear outcome could be determined out of the build log This is the outcome we determined: outcome: VERIFIED-FAIL comment: needs porting: fatal error: apr.h: No such file or directory You will find a full build log attached below. Here are some hints about porting problems. See [1] for a comprehensive overview: error: 'conn_rec' has no member named 'remote_ip' These fields have been renamed in order to distinguish between the client IP address of the connection and the useragent IP address of the request. Porting is trivial, in most cases changing the pointer from conn_rec-remote_ip to request_rec-useragent_ip is enough error: implicit declaration of function 'ap_requires' error: implicit declaration of function 'ap_default_type' These functions were removed along the 2.2 authnz API. It needs a non-trivial API redesign. error: implicit declaration of function 'ap_get_server_version' Use ap_get_server_banner() error: format not a string literal and no format arguments [-Werror=format-security] Apache2 modules are being built with hardening build flags now in order to satisfy the hardening release goal [2]. A trivial fix comes over that problem. [1] http://httpd.apache.org/docs/2.4/developer/new_api_2_4.html [2] http://wiki.debian.org/ReleaseGoals/SecurityHardeningBuildFlags libapache-mod-musicindex_1.3.7-2-amd64-20120504-0404.gz Description: Binary data
Bug#666834: Test rebuild of your package libapache-mod-musicindex
I don't get it: I thought Apache 2.4 wasn't scheduled for Wheezy? On Sat, May 5, 2012 at 1:48 PM, a...@debian.org wrote: tags 666834 '+upstream' thanks Dear maintainer, this is a follow-up message to your Apache 2.4 transition bug for package libapache-mod-musicindex. We are approaching an upload of the web server to Debian's Unstable repository as soon as the release team acknowledges the upload. Along that upload we are planning to raise the importance of this bug to a release-critical severity. Please port your packages now to Apache 2.4. Below you can find a test-rebuild for your package for the 2.4 version of the Apache web server. Please note, even if the rebuild was successful, you still need to make changes in the Debian specific part of your package. The rebuild below was made by using a specially prepared build environment where these conditions where met: * We had apache2 and apache2-dev preinstalled * We provided a void apache2-threaded-dev and apache2-prefork-dev package to satisfy build-dependencies of your existing package (but this WILL NOT be the case in a real upload of the apache2 source package) * We prepared apxs to unconditionally inject -Werror=implicit-function-declaration to gcc to make sure we can spot the use of removed API calls (e.g. missing signatures for ap_* functions). Note, this might also cause false positives in some cases. These are the outcome criterias we defined: * VERIFIED-OK: The package rebuilt and linked successfully using the Apache 2.4 development headers. It still needs adapting to Debian package changes * VERIFIED-FAIL: The package does not rebuild successufully using the Apache 2.4 development headers. It may need some porting in the upstream code base * BYHAND: We may rebuild your package another time with manual interception. Not clear outcome could be determined out of the build log This is the outcome we determined: outcome: VERIFIED-FAIL comment: needs porting: fatal error: apr.h: No such file or directory You will find a full build log attached below. Here are some hints about porting problems. See [1] for a comprehensive overview: error: 'conn_rec' has no member named 'remote_ip' These fields have been renamed in order to distinguish between the client IP address of the connection and the useragent IP address of the request. Porting is trivial, in most cases changing the pointer from conn_rec-remote_ip to request_rec-useragent_ip is enough error: implicit declaration of function 'ap_requires' error: implicit declaration of function 'ap_default_type' These functions were removed along the 2.2 authnz API. It needs a non-trivial API redesign. error: implicit declaration of function 'ap_get_server_version' Use ap_get_server_banner() error: format not a string literal and no format arguments [-Werror=format-security] Apache2 modules are being built with hardening build flags now in order to satisfy the hardening release goal [2]. A trivial fix comes over that problem. [1] http://httpd.apache.org/docs/2.4/developer/new_api_2_4.html [2] http://wiki.debian.org/ReleaseGoals/SecurityHardeningBuildFlags -- Thibaut VARENE http://www.parisc-linux.org/~varenet/ -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-bugs-dist-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Bug#666834: Test rebuild of your package libapache-mod-musicindex
Hi, On 05.05.2012 19:44, Thibaut VARENE wrote: I don't get it: I thought Apache 2.4 wasn't scheduled for Wheezy? what makes you think that? We definitively want to have 2.4 in Wheezy. However, the final decision might come from the release team. -- with kind regards, Arno Töll IRC: daemonkeeper on Freenode/OFTC GnuPG Key-ID: 0x9D80F36D signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Bug#666834: Test rebuild of your package libapache-mod-musicindex
On Sat, May 5, 2012 at 7:48 PM, Arno Töll a...@debian.org wrote: Hi, On 05.05.2012 19:44, Thibaut VARENE wrote: I don't get it: I thought Apache 2.4 wasn't scheduled for Wheezy? what makes you think that? We definitively want to have 2.4 in Wheezy. However, the final decision might come from the release team. Pretty sure I saw a debian wiki page or other debian page stating that 2.4 wasn't due for Wheezy, but it seems I can't find it anymore. Last minute transition seems like added fun. Practical question: how am I supposed to upload a package that can be built either against 2.2 or 2.4 now that you have removed the apache2-dev package from 2.4? I've modified my source to build against 2.4 and it also supports (from the same source, 1.3 (yes!), 2.0 and 2.2). Thanks -- Thibaut VARENE http://www.parisc-linux.org/~varenet/ -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-bugs-dist-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
