Bug#674391: autofs: diff for NMU version 5.0.6-1.1
Hi Dmitrij, First of all thank you for picking up the maintenance of this package. It is non-trivial. On 01/06/12 01:57, Dmitry Smirnov wrote: Hi Dmitrijs, I'd like to thank you for your care for the 'autofs' package but please excuse me for expressing my non-appreciation of your NMU. I have cancelled it due to bug that Jakub Wilk expressed. Although perhaps not fast enough we're working on 'autofs' - we have a team of three and a different fix to the problem is already committed to repository. The changelog entry says: * declare myself as Maintainer (adopting package) And the control says, that there is one maintainer one uploader. Please, either change the maintainer to a team, or list all people on the team. Please, set Vcs-* fields as per: http://www.debian.org/doc/manuals/developers-reference/best-pkging-practices.html#bpp-vcs If the fix has been committed to Vcs-*, you should set the 'pending' tag on the bug. Correct Vcs-* headers, together with the pending tag would allowed me to find the patches I was looking for. I do believe the pressure you impose with your NMU is unnecessary because simply asking or sharing your suggestions in email to any of us would be better. True. I'm sorry for putting you in the spotlight. We are days away from the freeze, the package has RC bugs and did not transition to testing yet. I do not want to release wheezy without autofs. There is pressure from the release team. Friendly discussion is always preferable to aggressive pushing of your implementation over the shoulders of active maintainers who at least trying to discuss changes between themselves. From the changelog, I understood that there was only one maintainer who did ample of work to update the package. RC http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=673796 has no response from maintainer. Do you have a patch committed to some private Vcs repository? RC http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=674391 has no response from maintainer. And you say you do have a patch ready. Who sponsored your upload? Because bug #674391 is Fail To Build From Source (in a sane manner) filed the day after the upload. Autoconf was last updated on 2012-05-12. Did the package FTBFS (in a sane manner) on the upload? Also I'm sure you're aware that I'm not a DD, so to override your NMU I must complete changes for new release and find a sponsor within 5 days only. I am aware that you are not a DD. To cancel an NMU you only need to get any DD to 'sponsor' this one line: dcut ftp-eu cancel autofs_5.0.6-1.1_amd64.changes Nobody is forcing you to complete changes for a new release in an unreasonable quick amount of time. I am sure anyone from #debian-mentors would have done it, if it was not already done by me. Do you have a DD in your team of three people to review and sponsor packages? You're welcome to the team if you want to help but please consider first to communicate whatever improvements you might have and then perhaps sponsor the existing effort rather than override it with premature NMU. Yes, I do want to be part of the team. Do you have a team setup on alioth with a Vcs repository and mailing list? Or do you want help to set this up? Improvements I want to achieve: This package to migrate to testing. This means: * fix FTBFS in a sane way * fix FTBFS with gold / ld --as-needed * fix conf file upgrade handling Meanwhile I'll do my best to address the problem ASAP. Great. * Please comment on the bugs that are being worked on. * Please attach the patch to the BTS or point to VCS where this patch is available. * Please tag pending, if a solution for the bug is found and it will be part of the next upload. Above action, would have prevented spending me time doing duplicate work in a different time zone. Thank you. Thank you for you contributions to debian. I hope you will keep up the excellent work you are doing with this package. But please do fix the issues with the package I have outlined above. -- Regards, Dmitrijs. signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Bug#674391: autofs: diff for NMU version 5.0.6-1.1
Hi Dmitrijs, First of all thank you for picking up the maintenance of this package. It is non-trivial. :) I'd like to thank you for your care for the 'autofs' package but please excuse me for expressing my non-appreciation of your NMU. I have cancelled it due to bug that Jakub Wilk expressed. Thank you for this. You can read more about conflict with autotools-dev in CAVEATS section of dh-autoreconf(7). Although perhaps not fast enough we're working on 'autofs' - we have a team of three and a different fix to the problem is already committed to repository. The changelog entry says: * declare myself as Maintainer (adopting package) And the control says, that there is one maintainer one uploader. Please, either change the maintainer to a team, or list all people on the team. Please, set Vcs-* fields as per: http://www.debian.org/doc/manuals/developers-reference/best-pkging-practic es.html#bpp-vcs You're right. All the changes you're mentioned are pending. The team has formed after the package was sponsored so I was just trying to explain the current situation. Nevertheless for one or three maintainers NMU approach would still be invasive without first contacting the person(s) responsible. If the fix has been committed to Vcs-*, you should set the 'pending' tag on the bug. Normally I would agree but usually I'm trying to consider the fact that looking for sponsor may take weeks or even months in which case 'pending' may not be very useful. Sometimes I set 'pending' when package is ready and waiting for upload. Also one would expect that new 'serious' will hardly be unnoticed or ignored. If you have doubts, gentle reminder (accompanied with patch) will be always appreciated. :) Correct Vcs-* headers, together with the pending tag would allowed me to find the patches I was looking for. I'm with you, sorry for delay. Lesson learned. I do believe the pressure you impose with your NMU is unnecessary because simply asking or sharing your suggestions in email to any of us would be better. True. I'm sorry for putting you in the spotlight. We are days away from the freeze, the package has RC bugs and did not transition to testing yet. I do not want to release wheezy without autofs. There is pressure from the release team. No worries, I understand this. I had very serious issue preventing me from working on package. :( From the changelog, I understood that there was only one maintainer who did ample of work to update the package. RC http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=673796 has no response from maintainer. Do you have a patch committed to some private Vcs repository? Yes, we're using the following repository: http://anonscm.debian.org/gitweb/?p=collab-maint/autofs.git RC http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=674391 has no response from maintainer. And you say you do have a patch ready. Yes, see the above repository. Who sponsored your upload? You can find out with 'who-uploads' from devscripts. ;) Because bug #674391 is Fail To Build From Source (in a sane manner) filed the day after the upload. Autoconf was last updated on 2012-05-12. Did the package FTBFS (in a sane manner) on the upload? Autoconf is unrelated to the issue. Yes package was building fine but I think the second build would be broken due to modification introduced by upstream patches to a generated file. I'm not sure what has changed (if any) to provoke FTBFS - perhaps something was built differently because problem was discovered during automatic rebuild. (Shortly after upload I noticed that it was impossible to un-apply patches after build.) But I knew how to avoid the issue. Also I'm sure you're aware that I'm not a DD, so to override your NMU I must complete changes for new release and find a sponsor within 5 days only. I am aware that you are not a DD. To cancel an NMU you only need to get any DD to 'sponsor' this one line: dcut ftp-eu cancel autofs_5.0.6-1.1_amd64.changes Thank you. However when there is only little time left I need to ask more than one person in order to stop it for sure. Nobody is forcing you to complete changes for a new release in an unreasonable quick amount of time. I am sure anyone from #debian-mentors would have done it, if it was not already done by me. True. Do you have a DD in your team of three people to review and sponsor packages? Fortunately. :) You're welcome to the team if you want to help but please consider first to communicate whatever improvements you might have and then perhaps sponsor the existing effort rather than override it with premature NMU. Yes, I do want to be part of the team. Thank you and welcome :) Feel free to add yourself to Uploaders. Do you have a team setup on alioth with a Vcs repository and mailing list? Or do you want help to set this up? Yes, see above. Improvements I want to achieve: This
Bug#674391: autofs: diff for NMU version 5.0.6-1.1
tags 674391 + patch
tags 674391 + pending
thanks
Dear maintainer,
I've prepared an NMU for autofs (versioned as 5.0.6-1.1) and
uploaded it to DELAYED/5. Please feel free to tell me if I
should delay it longer.
Regards.
diff -Nru autofs-5.0.6/debian/changelog autofs-5.0.6/debian/changelog
--- autofs-5.0.6/debian/changelog 2012-04-25 08:20:20.0 +0100
+++ autofs-5.0.6/debian/changelog 2012-05-31 13:56:56.0 +0100
@@ -1,3 +1,14 @@
+autofs (5.0.6-1.1) unstable; urgency=low
+
+ * Non-maintainer upload.
+ * debian/patches/18ftbfs_autoreconf.patch: Fix FTBFS due to autoconf run
+at clean target. (Closes: #674391)
+ * debian/rules, debian/control: Run autoconf and autotools with dh
+helper instead.
+ * debian/patches/17ld.patch: FTBFS with gold / ld --no-add-needed
+
+ -- Dmitrijs Ledkovs dmitrij.led...@ubuntu.com Thu, 31 May 2012 13:51:39
+0100
+
autofs (5.0.6-1) unstable; urgency=low
* New upstream release
diff -Nru autofs-5.0.6/debian/control autofs-5.0.6/debian/control
--- autofs-5.0.6/debian/control 2012-04-25 05:38:18.0 +0100
+++ autofs-5.0.6/debian/control 2012-05-31 13:55:14.0 +0100
@@ -4,7 +4,7 @@
Maintainer: Dmitry Smirnov only...@member.fsf.org
Uploaders: Jan Christoph Nordholz he...@pool.math.tu-berlin.de
Standards-Version: 3.9.3
-Build-Depends: debhelper (= 9), autoconf, lsb-base,
+Build-Depends: debhelper (= 9), autotools-dev, dh-autoreconf, lsb-base,
bison, flex, libhesiod-dev, libkrb5-dev, libldap-dev, libsasl2-dev,
libssl-dev, libxml2-dev
Homepage: http://www.kernel.org/pub/linux/daemons/autofs/v5/
diff -Nru autofs-5.0.6/debian/patches/17ld.patch
autofs-5.0.6/debian/patches/17ld.patch
--- autofs-5.0.6/debian/patches/17ld.patch 1970-01-01 01:00:00.0
+0100
+++ autofs-5.0.6/debian/patches/17ld.patch 2012-05-31 13:57:26.0
+0100
@@ -0,0 +1,68 @@
+Description: FTBFS with gold / ld --no-add-needed
+
+diff -Naurp autofs5-5.0.6.orig//aclocal.m4 autofs5-5.0.6//aclocal.m4
+--- autofs5-5.0.6.orig//aclocal.m4 2011-06-28 03:34:35.0 -0400
autofs5-5.0.6//aclocal.m4 2011-07-03 21:44:22.090944882 -0400
+@@ -241,9 +241,9 @@ dnl
+ AC_DEFUN([AF_CHECK_LIBHESIOD],
+ [AC_MSG_CHECKING(for libhesiod)
+
+-# save current ldflags
+-af_check_hesiod_save_ldflags=$LDFLAGS
+-LDFLAGS=$LDFLAGS -lhesiod -lresolv
++# save current libs
++af_check_hesiod_save_libs=$LIBS
++LIBS=$LIBS -lhesiod -lresolv
+
+ AC_TRY_LINK(
+ [ #include hesiod.h ],
+@@ -253,8 +253,8 @@ AC_TRY_LINK(
+ AC_MSG_RESULT(yes) ],
+ [ AC_MSG_RESULT(no) ])
+
+-# restore ldflags
+-LDFLAGS=$af_check_hesiod_save_ldflags
++# restore libs
++LIBS=$af_check_hesiod_save_ldflags
+ ])
+
+ dnl --
+diff -Naurp autofs5-5.0.6.orig//configure autofs5-5.0.6//configure
+--- autofs5-5.0.6.orig//configure 2011-06-28 03:34:35.0 -0400
autofs5-5.0.6//configure 2011-07-03 21:44:22.100944883 -0400
+@@ -4030,9 +4030,9 @@ then
+ { $as_echo $as_me:${as_lineno-$LINENO}: checking for libhesiod 5
+ $as_echo_n checking for libhesiod... 6; }
+
+-# save current ldflags
+-af_check_hesiod_save_ldflags=$LDFLAGS
+-LDFLAGS=$LDFLAGS -lhesiod -lresolv
++# save current libs
++af_check_hesiod_save_ldflags=$LIBS
++LIBS=$LIBS -lhesiod -lresolv
+
+ cat confdefs.h - _ACEOF conftest.$ac_ext
+ /* end confdefs.h. */
+@@ -4057,8 +4057,8 @@ fi
+ rm -f core conftest.err conftest.$ac_objext \
+ conftest$ac_exeext conftest.$ac_ext
+
+-# restore ldflags
+-LDFLAGS=$af_check_hesiod_save_ldflags
++# restore libs
++LIBS=$af_check_hesiod_save_ldflags
+
+ if test $HAVE_HESIOD == 1; then
+
+diff -Naurp autofs5-5.0.6.orig//daemon/Makefile autofs5-5.0.6//daemon/Makefile
+--- autofs5-5.0.6.orig//daemon/Makefile2011-06-28 03:34:35.0
-0400
autofs5-5.0.6//daemon/Makefile 2011-07-03 21:44:22.100944883 -0400
+@@ -20,7 +20,7 @@ CFLAGS += -DAUTOFS_FIFO_DIR=\$(autofsfi
+ CFLAGS += -DAUTOFS_FLAG_DIR=\$(autofsflagdir)\
+ CFLAGS += -DVERSION_STRING=\$(version)\
+ LDFLAGS += -rdynamic
+-LIBS = -ldl
++LIBS = -ldl -lpthread
+
+ ifeq ($(LDAP), 1)
+ CFLAGS += $(XML_FLAGS)
diff -Nru autofs-5.0.6/debian/patches/18ftbfs_autoreconf.patch
autofs-5.0.6/debian/patches/18ftbfs_autoreconf.patch
--- autofs-5.0.6/debian/patches/18ftbfs_autoreconf.patch1970-01-01
01:00:00.0 +0100
+++ autofs-5.0.6/debian/patches/18ftbfs_autoreconf.patch2012-05-31
13:33:30.0 +0100
@@ -0,0 +1,30 @@
+Description: Fix FTBFS. Remove unconditional autoreconf in clean target.
+Author: Dmitrijs Ledkovs dmitrijs.ledk...@canonical.com
+Bug-Debian: http://bugs.debian.org/674391
+Last-Update: 2012-05-31
+
+=== modified file 'Makefile'
+--- old/Makefile 2008-04-28 15:55:37 +
new/Makefile 2012-05-31 12:32:27 +
+@@ -38,8 +38,6 @@
+ echo x .autofs-`cat .version`
+ sed -e s/(\.autofs-[0-9.]\+)/(.autofs-`cat
Bug#674391: autofs: diff for NMU version 5.0.6-1.1
* Dmitrijs Ledkovs dmitrij.led...@ubuntu.com, 2012-05-31, 16:12: - dh $@ + dh $@ --with autotools-dev,autoreconf dh_autoreconf is a superset of the autotools-dev debhelper addons, so you do not need --with=autotools_dev if you use --with=autoreconf. In fact, in most cases they should not be used together, as it may lead to unpredictable behaviour. (from dh-autoreconf(7) manpage) -- Jakub Wilk -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-bugs-dist-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Bug#674391: autofs: diff for NMU version 5.0.6-1.1
On 31/05/12 23:34, Jakub Wilk wrote: * Dmitrijs Ledkovs dmitrij.led...@ubuntu.com, 2012-05-31, 16:12: -dh $@ +dh $@ --with autotools-dev,autoreconf dh_autoreconf is a superset of the autotools-dev debhelper addons, so you do not need --with=autotools_dev if you use --with=autoreconf. In fact, in most cases they should not be used together, as it may lead to unpredictable behaviour. (from dh-autoreconf(7) manpage) I was not aware of this detail. My, wrong, understanding was that autootols-dev only replaced config.sub and config.guess, while autoreconf did autoconf, aclocal and etc. I did not know that autoreconf replaces config.sub/config.guess. I had a doubt when adding this (do I need both?!), but didn't check as I was not expecting it to cause harm. Should there be a lintian guard? Or warning? I will dcut and reupload. Again, thank you for noticing this. -- Regards, Dmitrijs. signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Bug#674391: autofs: diff for NMU version 5.0.6-1.1
* Dmitrijs Ledkovs x...@debian.org, 2012-05-31, 23:58:
-dh $@
+dh $@ --with autotools-dev,autoreconf
dh_autoreconf is a superset of the autotools-dev debhelper addons, so
you do not need --with=autotools_dev if you use --with=autoreconf. In
fact, in most cases they should not be used together, as it may lead
to unpredictable behaviour. (from dh-autoreconf(7) manpage)
I was not aware of this detail. My, wrong, understanding was that
autootols-dev only replaced config.sub and config.guess, while
autoreconf did autoconf, aclocal and etc. I did not know that
autoreconf replaces config.sub/config.guess. I had a doubt when adding
this (do I need both?!), but didn't check as I was not expecting it
to cause harm.
As far as I understand it, dh_autoreconf doesn't do anything special to
update config.{sub,guess}, other than calling autoreconf, which calls
autoconf, which updates them if needed. Note that this package don't
seem to use config.{sub,guess} at all, so the autotools-dev addon would
be redundant anyway.
Should there be a lintian guard? Or warning?
It should be easy to implement to such a check in lintian.
--
Jakub Wilk
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-bugs-dist-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Bug#674391: autofs: diff for NMU version 5.0.6-1.1
Hi Dmitrijs, I'd like to thank you for your care for the 'autofs' package but please excuse me for expressing my non-appreciation of your NMU. Although perhaps not fast enough we're working on 'autofs' - we have a team of three and a different fix to the problem is already committed to repository. I do believe the pressure you impose with your NMU is unnecessary because simply asking or sharing your suggestions in email to any of us would be better. Friendly discussion is always preferable to aggressive pushing of your implementation over the shoulders of active maintainers who at least trying to discuss changes between themselves. Also I'm sure you're aware that I'm not a DD, so to override your NMU I must complete changes for new release and find a sponsor within 5 days only. You're welcome to the team if you want to help but please consider first to communicate whatever improvements you might have and then perhaps sponsor the existing effort rather than override it with premature NMU. Meanwhile I'll do my best to address the problem ASAP. Thank you. Regards, Dmitry. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-bugs-dist-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
