[Pkg-iscsi-maintainers] Bug#784092: open-iscsi: udebs for some archs completely empty
Ritesh Raj Sarraf
rrs at debian.org
Tue May 12 08:51:06 UTC 2015
Apologies for the delayed reply.
On Sunday 03 May 2015 04:51 AM, Christian Seiler wrote:
> Package: open-iscsi
> Version: 2.0.873+git0.3b4b4500-8
> (I'm reporting this to keep track of the issue. I've found this by
> chance while improving the packaging.)
> udebs are currently only built for select architectures. Unfortunately,
> there are two separate lists that have gotten out of sync.
> The first list is in debian/control and tells Debian's build tools for
> which architectures the udeb should be built at all. The list of
> architectures there is:
> amd64 arm64 i386 ia64 mips mipsel powerpc s390x ppc64el ppc64 armhf
> The second list is in debian/rules. It is used to make the
> determination whether to populate the udeb or not. That list only
> contains the following architectures:
> amd64 arm64 i386 ia64 mips mipsel powerpc
> This means that for the following 4 architectures the udeb is built but
> never populated during build: s390x ppc64el ppc64 armhf
> You can see that if you look at the package sizes for different
> Most udebs are a few 100 K large, on those 4 archictectures they are
> less than 1 K large (which is probably just useless metadata).
> I've already fixed this in my local packaging (will push to git on
> alioth soon), where I have gotten rid of the separate list in
> debian/rules (making it impossible for the bug to resurface), but two
> questions remain for me:
> 1. I think we should ask the release team to make a stable update for
> Jessie's first point release, because this is really bad. The
> installer won't be able to provide iSCSI on those 4 architectures
> at all.
> If you agree, we should do an upload to unstable first with my
> packaging changes that also fix the bug (we need to fix it in
> unstable first before a PU will be accepted) and then prepare a
> targeted fix for Jessie (by just adding the missing archs to
> debian/rules). Normally I would not have suggested an unstable
> upload so soon already (I would have liked to have more changes in
> git beforehand), but this bug seems rather nasty to me.
> So if you are onboard, I'll run gbp dch on just my packaging
> changes so far in unstable so that a finished -9 package is in git.
> You can then do an unstable upload, I'll prepare a targeted upload
> for Jessie, push that into git, ask the release team for approval
> (which my guess is they'll grant for this type of bug) and then you
> could upload the specifically fixed version to jessie-p-u.
Yes. That is the right approach. Let's get it into Unstable. The stable
team anyways would ask the same.
> 2. Is there a reason why the udeb is not Architecture: any instead of
> the specific ones? I mean, the binaries are the same ones as in the
> normal deb package (no separate build), so I don't see why one
> needs this in the first place? Is this perhaps a relic from the
> time where the package still built kernel modules?
> Because I'd really like to get rid of the specific architecture
> list in general, that will reduce the maintenance burden in the
> long run - so ideally I'd change that to any or linux-any or so.
If memory serves me correct, the problem was that open-iscsi's
dependency, scsi-modules, wasn't available on all arches in the installer.
You should go through the bug report and then check the relevant
subsystem's current status.
Ritesh Raj Sarraf | http://people.debian.org/~rrs
Debian - The Universal Operating System
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Size: 819 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
More information about the Pkg-iscsi-maintainers