Bug#807026: FTBFS on amd64

2016-01-08 Thread Jens Reyer 
On 01/08/2016 09:40 AM, Graham Inggs wrote:
> On 08/01/2016 06:58, Jens Reyer wrote:
>> Upstream recently changed the buildsystem, since then the wine manpage
>> isn't available any more on 64-bit.
> 
> Has this been reported with upstream?  I don't think arch-dependent
> manpages are a good idea.

It was done on purpose and knowingly. I read about it on the upstream
mailing list, before seeing the consequences here. Since the manpages
contain arch specific paths I see this as the right solution generally.

The problem is that we can't really make use of the "correct" upstream
buildsystem in Debian, because we ship wrapper scripts in path, without
really knowing if the 32- or the 64-bit version gets installed, or if
they even get co-installed (then the wrapper scripts now default to
32-bit wine and 64-bit wineserver).

However I tend to ignore that as a real problem in the documentation,
see previous mails. I even decided for now to build the
wine64-binary-loader manpage from the unchanged wine-binary-loader
manpage-source.

Greets
jre

Bug#807026: FTBFS on amd64

2016-01-08 Thread Graham Inggs 

On 08/01/2016 06:58, Jens Reyer wrote:

I committed changes that allow to build arch:all everywhere again.
Despite the below described problems with arch specific paths in the
manpage, I still think this is the best solution.


Thanks, better than not building at all on amd64, for sure.


Upstream recently changed the buildsystem, since then the wine manpage
isn't available any more on 64-bit.


Has this been reported with upstream?  I don't think arch-dependent 
manpages are a good idea.

Bug#807026: FTBFS on amd64

2016-01-07 Thread Jens Reyer 
[I accidentally replied to the mailing list only, see 2 previous mail
below.]
I committed changes that allow to build arch:all everywhere again.
Despite the below described problems with arch specific paths in the
manpage, I still think this is the best solution.

Greets
jre


 Forwarded Message 
Subject: Re: Bug#807026: FTBFS on amd64
Date: Thu, 7 Jan 2016 17:29:57 +0100
From: Jens Reyer 
To: pkg-wine-pa...@lists.alioth.debian.org

On 01/07/2016 04:10 PM, Santiago Vila wrote:
> On Sat, 12 Dec 2015, Michael Gilbert wrote:
> So I should ask: Which one of those files is so special that they may
> not be built on amd64, and why not?

Upstream recently changed the buildsystem, since then the wine manpage
isn't available any more on 64-bit.

Yesterday I checked in a build based in my local git: surprisingly
loader/wine.man
still gets build (I didn't check if this also happened before my last
change). Yet arch:all still fails on amd64 because
debian/tmp/usr/share/man/man1/wineVERSION.1
doesn't exist. This would be created by d/rules from
debian/tmp/usr/share/man/man1/wine.1,
which in turn is created by the upstream buildsystem - but only on
32-bit, not on 64-bit arch.

I don't know how to patch the buildsystem. But me might fallback to
loader/wine.man on 64-bit.

However, there's something else to consider: the wine manpage yields
arch specific paths (bindir), which depend on whether wine32 and/or
wine64 is installed. I see no way to install the "correct" wine manpage
for all cases since the wine script /usr/bin/wine executes different
wine binaries depending on what is installed. Installing a 64-bit wine
manpage would only be correct if only wine64 is installed (currently it
is the "wrong" information in that case).
On the other side, the mentioned filepaths don't exist in Debian
(neither the loader, nor the wineserver if we keep my recent changes).

Greets
jre



---- Forwarded Message 
Subject: Re: Bug#807026: FTBFS on amd64
Date: Thu, 7 Jan 2016 17:46:59 +0100
From: Jens Reyer 
To: pkg-wine-pa...@lists.alioth.debian.org

On 01/07/2016 05:29 PM, Jens Reyer wrote:
> However, there's something else to consider: the wine manpage yields
> arch specific paths (bindir), which depend on whether wine32 and/or
> wine64 is installed. I see no way to install the "correct" wine manpage
> for all cases since the wine script /usr/bin/wine executes different
> wine binaries depending on what is installed. Installing a 64-bit wine
> manpage would only be correct if only wine64 is installed (currently it
> is the "wrong" information in that case).
> On the other side, the mentioned filepaths don't exist in Debian
> (neither the loader, nor the wineserver if we keep my recent changes).

Regarding that, I'm currently working on moving the wineserver script
from the package "wineserver" to "wine", and then to drop the latter
again (more on that soon).

With that setup most people would need for everything being "correct" a
wine manpage from 32-bit and a wineserver manpage from 64-bit, while
both would be shipped in the arch:all "wine" package, where the scripts
reside.

The arch specific paths mentioned in the man do exist, but as already
mentioned, the exact binaries do not. So what to do? Try to build on
64-bit, and ship the 64-bit manpages (as arch:all buildservers normally
are 64-bit)?

Greets
jre