Re: depending on libssl1.0-dev, buildd fails to find it

Hi! On Mon, 2016-12-19 at 13:12:32 +0100, Johannes Schauer wrote: > Quoting Mattia Rizzolo (2016-12-18 11:38:24) > > On Sat, Dec 17, 2016 at 09:27:12PM -0500, James McCoy wrote: > > > As Arno hinted at, it's to have reliable builds. A transient inability > > > to install the first arm of an

Re: depending on libssl1.0-dev, buildd fails to find it

On Mon, Dec 19, 2016 at 01:12:32PM +0100, Johannes Schauer wrote: > Hi, > > Quoting Mattia Rizzolo (2016-12-18 11:38:24) > > On Sat, Dec 17, 2016 at 09:27:12PM -0500, James McCoy wrote: > > > As Arno hinted at, it's to have reliable builds. A transient inability > > > to install the first arm of

Re: depending on libssl1.0-dev, buildd fails to find it

On Mon, Dec 19, 2016 at 09:13:25AM +0100, Daniel Pocock wrote: > Provides: libssl1.0-dev > > in the control file and would that ensure it works without tweaks? It might, but the proper way to fix it is: Build-Depends: libssl1.0-dev (>= 1.0.0) | libssl-dev (<< 1.1) i.e., put what's in unstable

Re: depending on libssl1.0-dev, buildd fails to find it

On 2016-12-19 12:12, Johannes Schauer wrote: Imagine you even directly build-depend on a virtual package. There is currently no way to somehow "reliably" always pick the same real provider of that virtual package. I'm not sure how that isn't exactly what you're doing by depending on

Re: depending on libssl1.0-dev, buildd fails to find it

Hi, Quoting Mattia Rizzolo (2016-12-18 11:38:24) > On Sat, Dec 17, 2016 at 09:27:12PM -0500, James McCoy wrote: > > As Arno hinted at, it's to have reliable builds. A transient inability > > to install the first arm of an alternation should caused a dep-wait > > state, not building with the

Re: depending on libssl1.0-dev, buildd fails to find it

Hi, Quoting James McCoy (2016-12-18 16:04:47) > On Sun, Dec 18, 2016 at 02:26:09PM +0100, Ondrej Novy wrote: > > Hi, > > > > 2016-12-18 14:14 GMT+01:00 James McCoy : > > > > Well, sbuild's man page documents that the aptitude resolver will check > > alternatives. If

Re: depending on libssl1.0-dev, buildd fails to find it

On 17/12/16 17:40, Christian Seiler wrote: > On 12/17/2016 04:49 PM, Daniel Pocock wrote: >> In my reSIProcate control[1] file, I included the following: >> >> Build-Depends: ... , libssl-dev (<< 1.1) | libssl1.0-dev (>= 1.0.0), ... >> >> pdebuild correctly builds it for sid with libssl1.0-dev

Re: depending on libssl1.0-dev, buildd fails to find it

On Sun, Dec 18, 2016 at 02:26:09PM +0100, Ondrej Novy wrote: > Hi, > > 2016-12-18 14:14 GMT+01:00 James McCoy : > > Well, sbuild's man page documents that the aptitude resolver will check > alternatives. If it doesn't in practice, that sounds like a bug. > > > you

Re: depending on libssl1.0-dev, buildd fails to find it

Hi, 2016-12-18 14:14 GMT+01:00 James McCoy : > Well, sbuild's man page documents that the aptitude resolver will check > alternatives. If it doesn't in practice, that sounds like a bug. > you need to run sbuild with "--resolve-alternatives" or add same option in sbuildrc.

Re: depending on libssl1.0-dev, buildd fails to find it

On Dec 18, 2016 05:38, "Mattia Rizzolo" wrote: On Sat, Dec 17, 2016 at 09:27:12PM -0500, James McCoy wrote: > Now, backports are a different story because they use a different > resolver which will pull in alternates. afaik sbuild strips the alternatives while parsing the

Re: depending on libssl1.0-dev, buildd fails to find it

Hi, 2016-12-18 11:38 GMT+01:00 Mattia Rizzolo : > afaik sbuild strips the alternatives while parsing the .dsc (or > d/control or whatever), before passing the information to the resolvers, > so even if you use another resolver for -bpo you still get the same > behaviour.

Re: depending on libssl1.0-dev, buildd fails to find it

On Sat, Dec 17, 2016 at 09:27:12PM -0500, James McCoy wrote: > As Arno hinted at, it's to have reliable builds. A transient inability > to install the first arm of an alternation should caused a dep-wait > state, not building with the alternate Build-Depends. which is kinda bullshit, as a

Re: depending on libssl1.0-dev, buildd fails to find it

On Sat, Dec 17, 2016 at 09:27:12PM -0500, James McCoy wrote: > Now, backports are a different story because they use a different > resolver which will pull in alternates. That's great to hear. Thanks. -- Sean Whitton signature.asc Description: PGP signature

Re: depending on libssl1.0-dev, buildd fails to find it

On Sun, Dec 18, 2016 at 01:55:16AM +, Sean Whitton wrote: > Hello Christian, > > On Sat, Dec 17, 2016 at 05:40:49PM +0100, Christian Seiler wrote: > > On 12/17/2016 04:49 PM, Daniel Pocock wrote: > > > In my reSIProcate control[1] file, I included the following: > > > > > > Build-Depends:

Re: depending on libssl1.0-dev, buildd fails to find it

Hello Christian, On Sat, Dec 17, 2016 at 05:40:49PM +0100, Christian Seiler wrote: > On 12/17/2016 04:49 PM, Daniel Pocock wrote: > > In my reSIProcate control[1] file, I included the following: > > > > Build-Depends: ... , libssl-dev (<< 1.1) | libssl1.0-dev (>= 1.0.0), ... > > > > pdebuild

Re: depending on libssl1.0-dev, buildd fails to find it

On 12/17/2016 04:49 PM, Daniel Pocock wrote: > In my reSIProcate control[1] file, I included the following: > > Build-Depends: ... , libssl-dev (<< 1.1) | libssl1.0-dev (>= 1.0.0), ... > > pdebuild correctly builds it for sid with libssl1.0-dev from openssl1.0[2] > > In the buildd[3] report, it

Re: depending on libssl1.0-dev, buildd fails to find it

Daniel Pocock writes: > In my reSIProcate control[1] file, I included the following: > > > Build-Depends: ... , libssl-dev (<< 1.1) | libssl1.0-dev (>= 1.0.0), ... > > > pdebuild correctly builds it for sid with libssl1.0-dev from openssl1.0[2] > > In the buildd[3] report, it

depending on libssl1.0-dev, buildd fails to find it

In my reSIProcate control[1] file, I included the following: Build-Depends: ... , libssl-dev (<< 1.1) | libssl1.0-dev (>= 1.0.0), ... pdebuild correctly builds it for sid with libssl1.0-dev from openssl1.0[2] In the buildd[3] report, it says that libssl-dev is uninstallable on every