-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 47
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
The libbfd dependence issue in Debian #300
Comments
Thanks for the kind words, and the report! We certainly do not want to remove In fact the dependency on Before that we used |
Reverting #255 is unfortunately not as easy as I would wish... Perhaps we could do a static linking as a stop-gap. We should make sonoma001@gmail.com aware of this discussion, too. |
As you can see in the cgreen package in Debian [1], sonoma001@gmail.com is the package maintainer, and I am the package uploader. I reviewed, sponsored his work, and uploaded the cgreen package into the Debian archive. Unfortunately, the package maintainer sonoma001@gmail.com is not active in Debian anymore. I tried to reach him several times but in vain since last year. Thus, I took over his maintenance job to keep this package in as good shape as possible, although I don't use cgreen daily. The static linking is a possible stopgap, but do you think it is possible to get it done before the mid of July? An alternative method is to upload the new version of cgreen to fix the issue by removing the cgreen-runner and cgreen-debug and adding these back in the next upload. |
Aah, it's always problematic when maintainers just fall of the grid. Happy to see you picking up the slack!
So you mean we can just remove I'm not familiar with the details in the packaging and release process, only a user ;-) Does that mean that for a period Or will it not even affect users? I'm thinking that it might never reach a live Debian distribution repository if that period is short enough? Or am I completely misunderstanding ;-) |
Exactly, you got the point.
Indeed.
The impact time length depends on how fast we fix it. The impact scope will be limited at sid or testing archive [1] instead of the official release stable version. |
Or, could we just hold back the 1.5 release and revert to 1.4 which does not have this "bug"? |
Since the 1.5 release has been uploaded, the version without libbfd would be the 1.5+ version. |
I have created a new issue, #302, to track progress towards fixing this the right way. I've managed to revert the changes introduced to use On a somewhat related note, I was glad that sonoma001@gmail.com created the packaging, but was a bit surprised with the partioning into I think it would be more natural to just have all things in a single package. But maybe that is also "forbidden" ;-) This is probably another issue, but I thought I'd mention it so I don't forget it. Is that structure within your domain as package maintainer/uploader to do something about at some point? |
Release 1.6.0 released without dependency on |
The related policy is listed here and here [1] https://www.debian.org/doc/debian-policy/ch-sharedlibs.html SZ |
Thanks to @thoni56 . I think the issue could be closed. I have been swamped with work recently, but I will squeeze the time to upload the new version of the cgreen. |
@thoni56 Sorry for the delayed response. I was swamped with work. Currently, I got two issues in packaging version 1.6.0, as shown below. I want to ask whether you have any ideas or suggestions. Issue 1. Got timeout issue in waiting doc/cgreen-guide-en.pdf-pdf with option -DCGREEN_WITH_PDF_DOCS:bool=TRUE
Issue 2: Got test failed in cgreen_runner_tests After setting option -DCGREEN_WITH_PDF_DOCS:bool=FALSE to skip the Issue 1, I met below issue.
|
I have no clue to the PDF-generation timeout... Could you post the difference for the tests that failed? These are all "messages test", comparing output to some golden, expected, output, so there might be some issue with how these are cleaned to be environment independent (removing dates, paths, ...). |
Hi,
The cgreen-runner and cgreen-debug depend on the binutils-dev. However, building Debian packages that depend on the shared libbfd is Not Allowed [1]. Thus, the cgreen received a "serious" bug [2] and will be removed from Debian archive in mid of July if do nothing then.
From my perspective, there are two solutions for this case. Either remove the cgreen-runner and cgreen-debug in Debian package, or link binutils-dev statically and document it with the Built-Using tag in the binary package.
I would like to discuss is there any additional solution to solve this issue?
Thanks for creating this fantastic tool.
[1] https://packages.debian.org/sid/amd64/binutils-dev
[2] https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=1010589
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: