Bug#367885: [Buildd-tools-devel] Bug#367885: schroot: schroot: FTBFS for sarge-backports, all archs

[René van Bevern]

Hello Roger,

> The current build deps for sarge-backports are:
>
> Build-Depends: debhelper (>= 4.0.0), autotools-dev, pkg-config (>= 0.20), libpam0g-dev (>= 0.79-2bpo1), uuid-dev, liblockdev1-dev (>= 1.0.2-0bpo1), libboost-dev, libboost-program-options-dev, gettext, libcppunit-dev
>
> I'm using ">=", rather than "=", as you suggest above.  How exactly
> should I be writing this?

Yes, the suggestion was a bit confused, I misread the build failure
log, I'm so sorry. :-/

The experimental build-depends issue that I was talking about is
covered in the following message:
http://lists.debian.org/debian-devel-announce/2006/04/msg00007.html
It's the same situation for the backports.org buildds, with the
exception that unfortunately not all autobuilders backports.org are
patched. (arm, mipsel, I can't do anything about those, though)

Your build dependency on liblockdev1-dev actually seems correct,
yes. The problem is the following: liblockdev1-dev depends on
liblockdev1 (= 1.0.2-0bpo1). This is not found out by the buildd and
it tries to satisfy the liblockdev1 dependency by just installing a
"liblockdev1", which is done using the Sarge repository because of its
higher priority.

The solution is to specify the _full_ build dependency list. I.e. for
all build-dependencies that you use from backports.org, you have to
specify also their dependencies, if these have to come from
backports.org. In case of liblockdev, this would be:
     "liblockdev1-dev (>= 1.0.2-0bpo1), liblockdev1 (= 1.0.2-0bpo1)"
(you'd have to play with the relation signs a bit, for whatever fits
the relation between the two packages)

This makes the buildd install both packages from the backports.org
archive, so that liblockdev1-dev has its dependencies satisfied. The
build dependency on libpam0g-dev (>= 0.79-2bpo1) seems ok,
however. (It does not want to pull in other packages from
Backports.org)

This should make schroot build on at least the patched buildds (sparc,
i386, ...). I hope I wrote it understandable enough and the
description helps. :-) More details are available in the first link.

Thank you for considering,
            René

-- 
René van Bevern	<rvb at debian.org>
http://progn.org  http://www.debian.org  http://www.pro-linux.de
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 188 bytes
Desc: not available
Url : http://lists.alioth.debian.org/pipermail/buildd-tools-devel/attachments/20060518/ba6e1453/attachment.pgp