dev-cpp/sourcetrail: Adjust openssl dependency #10777

dhallas · 2019-01-08T15:33:58Z

Adjust openssl dependency to handle slot depencies. The Sourcetrail
package is built agains openssl-1.0.1 so pinning it to
=dev-lib/openssl-1.0*:* should match the correct version.

Closes: https://bugs.gentoo.org/674788
Signed-off-by: David Hallas david@davidhallas.dk
Package-Manager: Portage-2.3.51, Repoman-2.3.11

gentoo-bot · 2019-01-08T15:36:13Z

Copyright policy change

Please note that on 2018-09-15 Trustees have approved new Gentoo copyright policy. All contributions made to Gentoo need to follow this policy. If you include the Signed-off-by line in your commit message, you indicate that you have read the policy and agree to its terms. For more detailed explanation, please see the new Gentoo copyright policy explained article.

Pull Request assignment

Submitter: @dhallas
Areas affected: ebuilds
Packages affected: dev-cpp/sourcetrail

dev-cpp/sourcetrail: @dhallas, @gentoo/proxy-maint

Linked bugs

Bugs linked: 674788

In order to force reassignment and/or bug reference scan, please append [please reassign] to the pull request title.

Docs: Code of Conduct ● Copyright policy (expl.) ● Devmanual ● GitHub PRs ● Proxy-maint guide

a17r · 2019-01-10T22:30:18Z

dev-cpp/sourcetrail/sourcetrail-2018.3.55.ebuild

@@ -17,7 +17,7 @@ IUSE="examples selinux"
 DEPEND="dev-util/patchelf"

 RDEPEND="
-	dev-libs/openssl
+	=dev-libs/openssl-1.0*:*


:* slot operator is contradicting your version restriction

Instead of restricting to1.0, you should depend on the correct binary openssl slot

A change of RDEPEND requires revbump.

Thanks for the feedback :)

I have adjusted the dependency to dev-libs/openssl:0 - I hope that is correct? I am not entirely sure how OpenSSL handles binary backwards compatibility, but I assume that any version within slot 0 is binary compatible? As I noted in the commit message, I can see from the binaries that the Sourcetrail package has been built against OpenSSL 1.0.1f.

Also, I haven't done a revbump before, so please let me know if I haven't done it correctly :)

slot 0 is for source packages, while 1.0* versions would currently work for your package, slot 0 is already providing 1.1.0 and 1.1.1 as well. so if your binary package needs 1.0, depend on slot 1.0.0. Use eshowkw to get a good overview over available slots.

So would that mean that the ebuild should depend on:

=dev-libs/openssl:1.0.0

or would it be

=dev-libs/openssl-1.0.0*

or how would you express that dependency?

For depending on the slot, you use: dev-libs/openssl:1.0.0

But now I get a huge list of blocked packages, it appears to be caused by dev-libs/openssl:1.0.0 and dev-libs/openssl:0 cannot be installed at the same time :/ This is far from optimal :) So what can I do to fix this?
If I do a grep -r 'dev-libs/openssl:[1-9]+' /usr/portage I don't see any mathes, so I am wondering what other binary packages are doing?
Looking at app-emulation/crossover-bin-17.5.1.ebuild the OpenSSL dependency is listed as dev-libs/openssl:0[abi_x86_32(-)] and for media-sound/spotify it is simply dev-libs/openssl:0

Any help is greatly appreciated

This is an extract of the blockers I see:

/usr/local/portage/dev-cpp/sourcetrail emerge -1 sourcetrail These are the packages that would be merged, in order: Calculating dependencies ... done! [ebuild NS ~] dev-libs/openssl-1.0.2q-r200:1.0.0::gentoo [1.0.2q:0::gentoo] USE="asm sslv3 tls-heartbeat zlib -bindist -gmp -kerberos -rfc3779 -sctp -sslv2 -static-libs -test -vanilla" ABI_X86="(64) -32 (-x32)" CPU_FLAGS_X86="(sse2)" 0 KiB [ebuild R ~] dev-cpp/sourcetrail-2018.3.55-r1::DavidsOverlay USE="-examples (-selinux)" 0 KiB [blocks B ] =dev-libs/openssl-1.0.2*:0 ("=dev-libs/openssl-1.0.2*:0" is blocking dev-libs/openssl-1.0.2q-r200) Total: 2 packages (1 in new slot, 1 reinstall), Size of downloads: 0 KiB Conflict: 1 block (1 unsatisfied) * Error: The above package list contains packages which cannot be * installed at the same time on the same system. (dev-libs/openssl-1.0.2q-r200:1.0.0/1.0.0::gentoo, ebuild scheduled for merge) pulled in by dev-libs/openssl:1.0.0 required by (dev-cpp/sourcetrail-2018.3.55-r1:0/0::DavidsOverlay, ebuild scheduled for merge) >=dev-libs/openssl-0.9.8:* required by (net-vpn/openvpn-2.4.6:0/0::gentoo, installed) (dev-libs/openssl-1.0.2q:0/0::gentoo, installed) pulled in by dev-libs/openssl:0/0= required by (dev-db/mariadb-10.1.37:0/18::gentoo, installed) dev-libs/openssl:0= required by (www-client/falkon-3.0.1:0/0::gentoo, installed) dev-libs/openssl:0/0= required by (dev-libs/libgit2-0.26.8:0/26::gentoo, installed) >=dev-libs/openssl-0.9.8:0= required by (dev-python/m2crypto-0.24.0:0/0::gentoo, installed)

But now I get a huge list of blocked packages, it appears to be caused by dev-libs/openssl:1.0.0 and dev-libs/openssl:0 cannot be installed at the same time :/ This is far from optimal :) So what can I do to fix this?

When you look closer it is not the slots that are conflicting, but of course dev-libs/openssl-1.0.2q-r200:1.0.0 needs to block =dev-libs/openssl-1.0.2*:0 which would install the same files. Other versions within slot 0 are fine.
The blocker happens because you only make a partial upgrade, and you are apparently coming from a stable system. But sourcetrail only has ~arch keywords, so it is perfectly fine to be blocking arch versions.

Thanks for the quick reply. But I am not sure I know how to fix this?
It is true I generally run a stable system, but I had to add =dev-libs/openssl-1.0.2q-r200 to package.keywords because there are no stable openssl for the 1.0.0 slot. I have tried adding =dev-libs/openssl-1.1.0j to package.keywords as well, and that removes most of the blockers, only leaving these:

[blocks B ] >=dev-libs/openssl-1.1 (">=dev-libs/openssl-1.1" is blocking dev-db/mariadb-10.1.37) [blocks B ] >=dev-libs/openssl-1.1.0 (">=dev-libs/openssl-1.1.0" is blocking dev-db/mariadb-10.1.37)

And that blocker is probably caused by that version of mariadb not being compatible with openssl-1.1.

So why is it that openssl-1.0.2q-r200 doesn't fulfill the dev-libs/openssl:0 slot? I can see that it has the SLOT variable set to 1.0.0 and that is probably why, but how is this handled for other packages? It seems like it makes it very hard for users to install a consistent system :/

So, should I just update the pull request to change the RDEPEND line to dev-libs/openssl:1.0.0 just like you initially said, and then I will need to sort out how to make the package installable on my system?

Thanks for explaining these things :)

Polynomial-C · 2019-01-14T17:12:37Z

Sorry guys but most of this discussion about the correct package slot is nonsense. Like I wrote in https://bugs.gentoo.org/674788, the best approach is =dev-libs/openssl-1.0*:* and no, this does not contradict the pinning to openssl-1.0 because this way users either get =dev-libs/openssl-1.0*:0 or =dev-libs/openssl-1.0*:1.0.0. There will never be other slots containing openssl-1.0 so this is the best approach to go with.

dhallas · 2019-01-14T17:35:43Z

Sorry guys but most of this discussion about the correct package slot is nonsense. Like I wrote in https://bugs.gentoo.org/674788, the best approach is =dev-libs/openssl-1.0*:* and no, this does not contradict the pinning to openssl-1.0 because this way users either get =dev-libs/openssl-1.0*:0 or =dev-libs/openssl-1.0*:1.0.0. There will never be other slots containing openssl-1.0 so this is the best approach to go with.

Thanks for the reply, and sorry if I have misunderstood something, I am a new maintainer and I am really trying to understand how these things work :)

So should I just update the pull request to have =dev-libs/openssl-1.0*:* in RDEPEND and we are good to go?

Thanks for your feedback

a17r · 2019-01-23T22:26:25Z

Thanks for the reply, and sorry if I have misunderstood something, I am a new maintainer and I am really trying to understand how these things work :)

There are often >1 ways to do something, and Poly-C's advice is the most compatible even with mixed arch/~arch keywords. Some devs may mistake it for a misuse of :* though, and I like to be more explicit as well - package is just in ~arch and slot 1.0.0 will soon be the only place of the required .so anyway. Anyone looking at future version bumps will be clear about the necessary slot as well.

dhallas · 2019-01-24T08:02:01Z

Thanks for the reply, and sorry if I have misunderstood something, I am a new maintainer and I am really trying to understand how these things work :)

There are often >1 ways to do something, and Poly-C's advice is the most compatible even with mixed arch/~arch keywords. Some devs may mistake it for a misuse of :* though, and I like to be more explicit as well - package is just in ~arch and slot 1.0.0 will soon be the only place of the required .so anyway. Anyone looking at future version bumps will be clear about the necessary slot as well.

Yes, I totally agree :)
So in order to move this PR forward, do I need to change anything? Or should it be merged as is?

Polynomial-C · 2019-01-24T14:50:15Z

Please change the openssl dep back to =dev-libs/openssl-1.0*:*

dhallas · 2019-01-24T18:33:18Z

Please change the openssl dep back to =dev-libs/openssl-1.0*:*

I have updated the commit with the requested changes. Let me know if there is anything else I need to do.

a17r

Your signoff is broken, please fix. Set it in make.conf and use repoman commit to avoid that headache.

Adjust openssl dependency to depend on =dev-libs/openssl-1.0*:*. The Sourcetrail package is built agains openssl-1.0.1 so depending on =dev-libs/openssl-1.0*:0 should match the correct version. Closes: https://bugs.gentoo.org/674788 Package-Manager: Portage-2.3.51, Repoman-2.3.11 Signed-off-by: David Hallas <david@davidhallas.dk>

dhallas · 2019-02-04T07:35:54Z

Your signoff is broken, please fix. Set it in make.conf and use repoman commit to avoid that headache.

Sorry about that ;)

I have fixed it now and I have set it in my make.conf so I don't make this typo again.

gentoo-repo-qa-bot · 2019-02-04T07:59:34Z

Pull request CI report

Report generated at: 2019-02-04 07:59 UTC
Newest commit scanned: 7efb8b0
Status: ✅ good

No issues found

gentoo-bot added self-maintained The PR changes only packages that are maintained by the submitter (i.e. no need to ask anybody else) assigned PR successfully assigned to the package maintainer(s). bug linked Bug/Closes found in footer, and cross-linked with the PR. labels Jan 8, 2019

a17r suggested changes Jan 10, 2019

View reviewed changes

a17r approved these changes Feb 3, 2019

View reviewed changes

a17r suggested changes Feb 3, 2019

View reviewed changes

a17r approved these changes Feb 4, 2019

View reviewed changes

gentoo-bot closed this in 07fad24 Feb 4, 2019

dhallas mentioned this pull request Feb 4, 2019

dev-cpp/sourcetrail: Bump to 2019.1.11 #10410

Closed

Provide feedback

Saved searches

Use saved searches to filter your results more quickly

dev-cpp/sourcetrail: Adjust openssl dependency #10777

dev-cpp/sourcetrail: Adjust openssl dependency #10777

dhallas commented Jan 8, 2019

gentoo-bot commented Jan 8, 2019

a17r Jan 10, 2019

dhallas Jan 11, 2019

a17r Jan 11, 2019 •

edited

dhallas Jan 11, 2019

a17r Jan 11, 2019

dhallas Jan 11, 2019

a17r Jan 11, 2019 •

edited

dhallas Jan 11, 2019

Polynomial-C commented Jan 14, 2019

dhallas commented Jan 14, 2019

a17r commented Jan 23, 2019

dhallas commented Jan 24, 2019

Polynomial-C commented Jan 24, 2019

dhallas commented Jan 24, 2019

a17r left a comment

dhallas commented Feb 4, 2019

gentoo-repo-qa-bot commented Feb 4, 2019

dev-cpp/sourcetrail: Adjust openssl dependency #10777

dev-cpp/sourcetrail: Adjust openssl dependency #10777

Conversation

dhallas commented Jan 8, 2019

gentoo-bot commented Jan 8, 2019

Copyright policy change

Pull Request assignment

Linked bugs

a17r Jan 10, 2019

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

dhallas Jan 11, 2019

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

a17r Jan 11, 2019 • edited

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

dhallas Jan 11, 2019

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

a17r Jan 11, 2019

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

dhallas Jan 11, 2019

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

a17r Jan 11, 2019 • edited

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

dhallas Jan 11, 2019

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Polynomial-C commented Jan 14, 2019

dhallas commented Jan 14, 2019

a17r commented Jan 23, 2019

dhallas commented Jan 24, 2019

Polynomial-C commented Jan 24, 2019

dhallas commented Jan 24, 2019

a17r left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

dhallas commented Feb 4, 2019

gentoo-repo-qa-bot commented Feb 4, 2019

Pull request CI report

a17r Jan 11, 2019 •

edited

a17r Jan 11, 2019 •

edited