[Build-common-hackers] Bug#652945: Bug#652945: Atrocious interactions between CDBS, libtool and source format 3.0 (quilt)
dr at jones.dk
Thu Dec 22 02:23:21 UTC 2011
severity 652945 wishlist
On 11-12-22 at 12:45am, Steve McIntyre wrote:
> Package: cdbs
> Version: 0.4.100
> Severity: grave
> Justification: zero documentation, wasting hours of development time, causing many bugs
> I've just wasted multiple hours trying to fix up the mess in an NMU
> (#652369). That bug itself isn't necessarily caused by CDBS itself,
> but a lot of the time I've spent trying to fix it definitely is.
(note for later: that was 1 (one) bug, _not_ caused by CDBS)
> I've just had to update the dvbstreamer package's local copy of
> libtool to make it build binaries in a current unstable chroot. After
> fighting through the CDBS code to decipher how to do that (yay for
> total lack of documentation!), I've found DEB_AUTO_UPDATE_LIBTOOL that
> seems to do what I need.
True, CDBS currently lacks formal documentation.
> Unfortunately, it doesn't take copies of any of the existing upstream
> files to be able to put them back during a "debian/rules clean" run.
> That means that dpkg-source v3 (quilt) bitches and refuses to run
> again once I've done a build due to uncommitted changes.
True, DEB_AUTO_UPDATE_LIBTOOL helps you update Libtool, but does not
help you restore during clean.
You may also find dh-autoreconf useful. I am unaware if it works alone
or is entangled with short-form "dh" these days.
Contrary to common misconception, CDBS does not conflict with debhelper
but complements it. Short-form "dh" debhelper syntax conflicts with
> Hence, I can't tweak things and re-run dpkg-buildpackage/debuild while
> debugging things (as already complained about elsewhere this week).
Wrong: CDBS only helping you partly does not mean that you "can't tweak
> I've looked in vain for any way to make this work, but cannot find
Not sure where you looked in vain (yes, you already mentioned that
documentation i lacking so obviously I expect you to be talking about
something else - not repeating yourself!). What I typically do is look
at other CDBS-using packages for inspiration. Try look at liblrdf, it
does little other tweaking than regenerating autotools incl. Libtool.
> Therefore, I'm about to upload my new NMU with working packages
> but (as far as I'm concerned) a buggy build system that will reliably
> fail to build twice in a row. If this wasn't an NMU and therefore I
> wasn't trying to keep changes minimal, I would be fixing the package
> more deeply by repackaging it without CDBS.
> Please remove this under-documented and badly-designed rubbish from
> the archive. It's been responsible for bad maintainer behaviour and
> lots of RC bugs in the past, and I can see this happening again and
> again in future.
Apart from lack of documentation (reported already in bug#649151), the
"causing many bugs" really is one bug which you yourself describe as not
caused by CDBS. I therefore consider this a rant and a wish for CDBS to
disappear, and have lowered severity accordingly.
* Jonas Smedegaard - idealist & Internet-arkitekt
* Tlf.: +45 40843136 Website: http://dr.jones.dk/
[x] quote me freely [ ] ask before reusing [ ] keep private
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Size: 836 bytes
Desc: Digital signature
More information about the Build-common-hackers