Packaging alien, debhelper and po-debconf

[Sérgio Basto]

Hi, 
we have 3 Review Request stalled ,
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=695233
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=591190
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=591389
alien is ready , but depends on  po-debconf and debhelper.

Anyone interested in review and packaging debhelper and po-debconf  with
me ? , doing new Review Request or reviewing.

Thanks,
-- 
Sérgio M. B.

[Richard W.M. Jones]

On Wed, May 01, 2013 at 03:00:34AM +0100, Sérgio Basto wrote:
>  https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=591190 
I'm prepared to take debhelper.  But:

(1) It looks like the latest package is over 1 year old.  I think a
newer package should be presented (in this bug or in a newly opened
one).

(2) Can debhelper be used to make .deb's on a Fedora host?  If it
works, that would currently be very interesting to me.

Rich.

-- 
Richard Jones, Virtualization Group, Red Hat http://people.redhat.com/~rjones
libguestfs lets you edit virtual machines.  Supports shell scripting,
bindings from many languages.  http://libguestfs.org

[Oron Peled]

On Wednesday 01 May 2013 22:21:20 Richard W.M. Jones wrote:
>  On Wed, May 01, 2013 at 03:00:34AM +0100, Sérgio Basto wrote:
>  > https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=591190
>  I'm prepared to take debhelper.  But:
>  (1) It looks like the latest package is over 1 year old.  I think a
>       newer package should be presented (in this bug or in a newly opened
>       one).
>  (2) Can debhelper be used to make .deb's on a Fedora host?  If it
>        works, that would currently be very interesting to me. 
I'll start with (2):
 * I can build .deb's on Fedora using pbuilder/pdebuild.

 * Here is the tree of RR for making it work:
       https://bugzilla.redhat.com/showdependencytree.cgi?id=591388

 * Credit goes to Jeroen van Meeuwen. I just joined to help move it forward
    [ with very little success so far, mind you :-( ]

 * And yes, I think it makes Fedora a better development platform if you can
    use it to build both rpm's and deb's (on Debian, you can do both).

Now to (1)... Ouch:
 * The stalling of po-debconf is my fault, but see today's update to rhbz#591389
   (I'm fixing my ways...)

 * If we resolve it quickly, the next is debhelper (rhbz#591190). IMO the main
   blocker there is finding someone committed to review (I'm willing to maintain it).
   There's another problem in the chain (dpkg too old), but hopefully it will
   be OK soon (maintainer updated today the BR and said he would fix it RSN)

 * I uploaded a temporary pbuilder SRPM:
      http://oron.fedorapeople.org/deb-package/pbuilder-0.213-1.fc18.src.rpm
   - It's up-to-date (Debian/wheezy)
   - But I didn't have time to clean it up for review. Hope to do this in the next
     few days and update the RR.

So maybe we finally have a chance to move this along before the
dedicated bug zappers would zap it (no criticism -- they work
hard to clean the mess we leave behind us).

Unrelated note:
 * I've been using schroot(1) a lot in the last years on both Debian/Fedora to
    maintain multiple clean build environments of different OS.
 * However, one of the most useful features -- snapshots via LVM -- is not
    usable in Fedora due to rhbz#600636
 * That bug-report is stalled since 2010, and exactly a year passed since
    I sent a tested patch...

OK, back to work now.

-- 
Oron Peled                                 Voice: [phone]
oron(a)actcom.co.il                  http://users.actcom.co.il/~oron
Linux: Because rebooting is for adding new hardware

[Sérgio Basto]

On Ter, 2013-05-07 at 14:07 +0300, Oron Peled wrote: 
>  On Wednesday 01 May 2013 22:21:20 Richard W.M. Jones wrote:
>  > On Wed, May 01, 2013 at 03:00:34AM +0100, Sérgio Basto wrote:
>  > > https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=591190
>  > I'm prepared to take debhelper.  But:
>  > (1) It looks like the latest package is over 1 year old.  I think a
>  >      newer package should be presented (in this bug or in a newly opened
>  >      one).
>  > (2) Can debhelper be used to make .deb's on a Fedora host?  If it
>  >       works, that would currently be very interesting to me.
>  
>  I'll start with (2):
>   * I can build .deb's on Fedora using pbuilder/pdebuild.
>  
>   * Here is the tree of RR for making it work:
>         https://bugzilla.redhat.com/showdependencytree.cgi?id=591388
>  
>   * Credit goes to Jeroen van Meeuwen. I just joined to help move it forward
>      [ with very little success so far, mind you :-( ]
>  
>   * And yes, I think it makes Fedora a better development platform if you can
>      use it to build both rpm's and deb's (on Debian, you can do both).
>  
>  Now to (1)... Ouch:
>   * The stalling of po-debconf is my fault, but see today's update to rhbz#591389
>     (I'm fixing my ways...)
>  
>   * If we resolve it quickly, the next is debhelper (rhbz#591190). IMO the main
>     blocker there is finding someone committed to review (I'm willing to maintain
> it).
>     There's another problem in the chain (dpkg too old), but hopefully it will
>     be OK soon (maintainer updated today the BR and said he would fix it RSN)
>  
>   * I uploaded a temporary pbuilder SRPM:
>        http://oron.fedorapeople.org/deb-package/pbuilder-0.213-1.fc18.src.rpm
>     - It's up-to-date (Debian/wheezy)
>     - But I didn't have time to clean it up for review. Hope to do this in the next
>       few days and update the RR.
>  
>  So maybe we finally have a chance to move this along before the
>  dedicated bug zappers would zap it (no criticism -- they work
>  hard to clean the mess we leave behind us).
>  
>  Unrelated note:
>   * I've been using schroot(1) a lot in the last years on both Debian/Fedora to
>      maintain multiple clean build environments of different OS.
>   * However, one of the most useful features -- snapshots via LVM -- is not
>      usable in Fedora due to rhbz#600636
>   * That bug-report is stalled since 2010, and exactly a year passed since
>      I sent a tested patch...
>  
>  OK, back to work now. 
OK so lets cleanup all this reviews, do you finish the reviews
requests ? I can only do it on week ends . 

we have Richard W.M. Jones and Dmitrij S. Kryzhevich also interested in
this packages.

As alien is ready just need be updated to 0.88 , the most priority are
debhelper and po-debconf , but we can do the others 

Best regards. 
-- 
Sérgio M. B.

[Oron Peled]

On Tuesday 07 May 2013 17:29:09 Sérgio Basto wrote:
>  OK so lets cleanup all this reviews, do you finish the reviews
>  requests ? I can only do it on week ends. 
I intend to do my best . But other people (the reviewers) are also involved.

>  we have Richard W.M. Jones and Dmitrij S. Kryzhevich also interested
> in
>  this packages. 
So as a first step you can start with my proposed srpm's:
 * Check/build them yourselves. Report problems/deficiencies.
 * See if they are OK for your use case.
 * As a bonus, if you find why '%check' in po-debconf failes -- even better.
   (the spec has commented out instructions + results)

>  As alien is ready just need be updated to 0.88 , the most priority
> are
>  debhelper and po-debconf , but we can do the others 
Here is the checklist:
 - po-debconf almost OK, waiting for cwickert comments (reviewer)
 - dpkg upgrade, waiting for maintainer, he would try to finish it this weekend
 - debhelper, ready (IMO), reviewer is silent for ages -- can you take it?
   how?
 - pbuilder, working package, need cleanup (me), after the 3 pre-requisites
   are ready it would be justified to bother the reviewer.

Bye,

-- 
Oron Peled                                 Voice: [phone]
oron(a)actcom.co.il                  http://users.actcom.co.il/~oron
If it's there and you can see it, it's REAL
If it's there and you can't see it, it's TRANSPARENT
If it's not there and you can see it, it's VIRTUAL
If it's not there and you can't see it, it's GONE!

[Christopher Meng]

For BZ#695233,

I make a better one, see comment 18 at:

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=695233

Please point out any errors, thanks!

[Sérgio Basto]

On Ter, 2013-05-14 at 18:24 +0800, Christopher Meng wrote: 
>  For BZ#695233, 
>  I make a better one, see comment 18 at: 
>  https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=695233 
>  Please point out any errors, thanks! 
I my plan is commit  BZ#648384 dpkg 1.6 which blocks BZ#961141
debhelper , after submit debhelper ,
I will finish review alien BZ#695233

Thanks, 
-- 
Sérgio M. B.

[Sérgio Basto]

On Ter, 2013-05-07 at 14:07 +0300, Oron Peled wrote: 
>  On Wednesday 01 May 2013 22:21:20 Richard W.M. Jones wrote:
>  > On Wed, May 01, 2013 at 03:00:34AM +0100, Sérgio Basto wrote:
>  > > https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=591190
>  > I'm prepared to take debhelper.  But:
>  > (1) It looks like the latest package is over 1 year old.  I think a
>  >      newer package should be presented (in this bug or in a newly opened
>  >      one).
>  > (2) Can debhelper be used to make .deb's on a Fedora host?  If it
>  >       works, that would currently be very interesting to me.
>  
>  I'll start with (2):
>   * I can build .deb's on Fedora using pbuilder/pdebuild.
>  
>   * Here is the tree of RR for making it work:
>         https://bugzilla.redhat.com/showdependencytree.cgi?id=591388
>  
>   * Credit goes to Jeroen van Meeuwen. I just joined to help move it forward
>      [ with very little success so far, mind you :-( ]
>  
>   * And yes, I think it makes Fedora a better development platform if you can
>      use it to build both rpm's and deb's (on Debian, you can do both).
>  
>  Now to (1)... Ouch:
>   * The stalling of po-debconf is my fault, but see today's update to rhbz#591389
>     (I'm fixing my ways...)
>  
>   * If we resolve it quickly, the next is debhelper (rhbz#591190). IMO the main
>     blocker there is finding someone committed to review (I'm willing to maintain
> it).
>     There's another problem in the chain (dpkg too old), but hopefully it will
>     be OK soon (maintainer updated today the BR and said he would fix it RSN)
>  
>   * I uploaded a temporary pbuilder SRPM:
>        http://oron.fedorapeople.org/deb-package/pbuilder-0.213-1.fc18.src.rpm
>     - It's up-to-date (Debian/wheezy)
>     - But I didn't have time to clean it up for review. Hope to do this in the next
>       few days and update the RR.
>  
>  So maybe we finally have a chance to move this along before the
>  dedicated bug zappers would zap it (no criticism -- they work
>  hard to clean the mess we leave behind us).
>  
>  Unrelated note:
>   * I've been using schroot(1) a lot in the last years on both Debian/Fedora to
>      maintain multiple clean build environments of different OS.
>   * However, one of the most useful features -- snapshots via LVM -- is not
>      usable in Fedora due to rhbz#600636
>   * That bug-report is stalled since 2010, and exactly a year passed since
>      I sent a tested patch...
>  
>  OK, back to work now. 
Hi, 
I'm going , if no problem, begin F18 cycle 
build this 7 packages: 
dpkg
debconf
po-debconf
debhelper
alien
dh-make
pbuilder

1st build dpkg and debconf  
after build po-debconf (depends on debconf)
after build debhelper ( depends on dpkg and po-debconf ) 
after build alien (depends on debhelper) and dh-make (depends on
debhelper )
after review and build pbuilder (depends on dh-make, debhelper and
po-debconf ) 


it is possible use Chained_builds ?
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Using_the_Koji_build_system#Chained_builds
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Bodhi/BuildRootOverrides


Thanks, 
-- 
Sérgio M. B.

[Tom Callaway]

On 06/02/2013 03:56 PM, Sérgio Basto wrote:
>  it is possible use Chained_builds ?
>  https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Using_the_Koji_build_system#Chained_builds
>  https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Bodhi/BuildRootOverrides 
Chained builds only work in rawhide, but you can manually do the
override tags for successful builds in the other branches, wait for the
builder repodata to regenerate, then, kick off the next build in sequence.

~tom

==
Fedora Project

[Sérgio Basto]

On Dom, 2013-06-02 at 20:56 +0100, Sérgio Basto wrote: 
>  On Ter, 2013-05-07 at 14:07 +0300, Oron Peled wrote: 
>  > On Wednesday 01 May 2013 22:21:20 Richard W.M. Jones wrote:
>  > > On Wed, May 01, 2013 at 03:00:34AM +0100, Sérgio Basto wrote:
>  > > > https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=591190
>  > > I'm prepared to take debhelper.  But:
>  > > (1) It looks like the latest package is over 1 year old.  I think a
>  > >      newer package should be presented (in this bug or in a newly opened
>  > >      one).
>  > > (2) Can debhelper be used to make .deb's on a Fedora host?  If it
>  > >       works, that would currently be very interesting to me.
>  > 
>  > I'll start with (2):
>  >  * I can build .deb's on Fedora using pbuilder/pdebuild.
>  > 
>  >  * Here is the tree of RR for making it work:
>  >        https://bugzilla.redhat.com/showdependencytree.cgi?id=591388
>  > 
>  >  * Credit goes to Jeroen van Meeuwen. I just joined to help move it forward
>  >     [ with very little success so far, mind you :-( ]
>  > 
>  >  * And yes, I think it makes Fedora a better development platform if you can
>  >     use it to build both rpm's and deb's (on Debian, you can do both).
>  > 
>  > Now to (1)... Ouch:
>  >  * The stalling of po-debconf is my fault, but see today's update to
> rhbz#591389
>  >    (I'm fixing my ways...)
>  > 
>  >  * If we resolve it quickly, the next is debhelper (rhbz#591190). IMO the main
>  >    blocker there is finding someone committed to review (I'm willing to maintain
> it).
>  >    There's another problem in the chain (dpkg too old), but hopefully it will
>  >    be OK soon (maintainer updated today the BR and said he would fix it RSN)
>  > 
>  >  * I uploaded a temporary pbuilder SRPM:
>  >       http://oron.fedorapeople.org/deb-package/pbuilder-0.213-1.fc18.src.rpm
>  >    - It's up-to-date (Debian/wheezy)
>  >    - But I didn't have time to clean it up for review. Hope to do this in the
> next
>  >      few days and update the RR.
>  > 
>  > So maybe we finally have a chance to move this along before the
>  > dedicated bug zappers would zap it (no criticism -- they work
>  > hard to clean the mess we leave behind us).
>  > 
>  > Unrelated note:
>  >  * I've been using schroot(1) a lot in the last years on both Debian/Fedora to
>  >     maintain multiple clean build environments of different OS.
>  >  * However, one of the most useful features -- snapshots via LVM -- is not
>  >     usable in Fedora due to rhbz#600636
>  >  * That bug-report is stalled since 2010, and exactly a year passed since
>  >     I sent a tested patch...
>  > 
>  > OK, back to work now.
>  
>  Hi, 
>  I'm going , if no problem, begin F18 cycle 
>  build this 7 packages: 
>  dpkg
>  debconf
>  po-debconf
>  debhelper
>  alien
>  dh-make
>  pbuilder
>  
>  1st build dpkg and debconf  
https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/packageinfo?packageID=9963
dpkg-1.16.10-4 for  devel , f19 and f18

https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/packageinfo?packageID=13893
debconf-1.5.49-2.fc18 for devel , f19 and f18

>  after build po-debconf (depends on debconf)
https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/packageinfo?packageID=16122
we need rebuild po-debconf for devel , f19 and f18 , for new
debconf-1.5.49   

I put debconf in buildroot-override 
bodhi --buildroot-override=debconf-1.5.49-2.fc18 --duration=5
--notes="For po-debconf, debhelper, alien and dh-make"

>  after build debhelper ( depends on dpkg and po-debconf )  
next
is put po-debconf  in build root , to build debhelper 

>  after build alien (depends on debhelper) and dh-make (depends on
>  debhelper ) 
next is put debhelper in build root , to build alien and dh-make

>  after review and build pbuilder (depends on dh-make, debhelper and
>  po-debconf )  

Oron, I don't have commit permissions for po-debconf and debhelper so you can
give me that and with buildroot-override we can finish this weekend .

Best regards and thanks,
-- 
Sérgio M. B.

[Oron Peled]

Some progress...

On Saturday 08 June 2013 10:47:21 Sérgio Basto wrote:
>  > I'm going , if no problem, begin F18 cycle
>  > build this 7 packages:
>  > dpkg 
This is what debhelper is waiting for

>  > debconf 
Went to give it some karma, found an irritating bug.
Now it is fixed and pushed to rawhide, f19, f18 (waiting for karma
on the last two)

>  > po-debconf 
Nothing to build here: po-debconf-0:1.0.16-1.nmu2.fc18.noarch is
in f18 for quite some time now.

>  > debhelper 
As soon as dpkg-1.16.x hits f18.

>  > alien
>  > dh-make
>  > pbuilder 
+1

>  > 1st build dpkg and debconf
>  
>  https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/packageinfo?packageID=9963
>  dpkg-1.16.10-4 for  devel , f19 and f18 
Just gave it some karma (f18, f19)

>  https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/packageinfo?packageID=13893
>  debconf-1.5.49-2.fc18 for devel , f19 and f18 
Waiting for fixed version (1.5.49-3.fc*) to get pushed to repositories.

>  > after build po-debconf (depends on debconf)
>  
>  https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/packageinfo?packageID=16122
>  we need rebuild po-debconf for devel , f19 and f18 , for new
>  debconf-1.5.49
>  I put debconf in buildroot-override
>  bodhi --buildroot-override=debconf-1.5.49-2.fc18 --duration=5
>  --notes="For po-debconf, debhelper, alien and dh-make" 
I may be missing something. How do I tell koji to build inside the buildroot override?

Bye,

-- 
Oron Peled                                 Voice: [phone]
oron(a)actcom.co.il                  http://users.actcom.co.il/~oron
Q:  What does FAQ stand for?
A:  We have Frequently Asked this Question, and we have no idea.

[Sérgio Basto]

On Dom, 2013-06-09 at 13:02 +0300, Oron Peled wrote:
>  Some progress...
>  
>   
>  
>  On Saturday 08 June 2013 10:47:21 Sérgio Basto wrote:
>  
>  > > I'm going , if no problem, begin F18 cycle
>  
>  > > build this 7 packages:
>  
>  > > dpkg
>  
>   
>  
>  This is what debhelper is waiting for
>  
>   
>  
>  > > debconf
>  
>   
>  
>  Went to give it some karma, found an irritating bug.
>  
>  Now it is fixed and pushed to rawhide, f19, f18 (waiting for karma
>  
>  on the last two)
>  
>   
>  
>  > > po-debconf
>  
>   
>  
>  Nothing to build here: po-debconf-0:1.0.16-1.nmu2.fc18.noarch is
>  
>  in f18 for quite some time now.
>  
>   
>  
>  > > debhelper
>  
>   
>  
>  As soon as dpkg-1.16.x hits f18.
>  
>   
>  
>  > > alien
>  
>  > > dh-make
>  
>  > > pbuilder
>  
>   
>  
>  +1
>  
>   
>  
>  > > 1st build dpkg and debconf
>  
>  > 
>  
>  > https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/packageinfo?packageID=9963
>  
>  > dpkg-1.16.10-4 for devel , f19 and f18
>  
>   
>  
>  Just gave it some karma (f18, f19)
>  
>   
>  
>  > https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/packageinfo?packageID=13893
>  
>  > debconf-1.5.49-2.fc18 for devel , f19 and f18
>  
>   
>  
>  Waiting for fixed version (1.5.49-3.fc*) to get pushed to
>  repositories.
>  
>   
>  
>  > > after build po-debconf (depends on debconf)
>  
>  > 
>  
>  > https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/packageinfo?packageID=16122
>  
>  > we need rebuild po-debconf for devel , f19 and f18 , for new
>  
>  > debconf-1.5.49
>  
>  > I put debconf in buildroot-override
>  
>  > bodhi --buildroot-override=debconf-1.5.49-2.fc18 --duration=5
>  
>  > --notes="For po-debconf, debhelper, alien and dh-make"
>  
>   
>  
>  I may be missing something. How do I tell koji to build inside the
>  buildroot override? 
yes simple like that :) , say to builder add to buildroot the new
package. 

I just done this command:
bodhi --buildroot-override=debconf-1.5.49-3.fc18 --duration=5
--notes="For po-debconf, debhelper, alien and dh-make" -u myuser

Response:
Your buildroot override has been successfully tagged. It may take up to
20 minutes for the buildroot to regenerate. You can wait for the new
buildroot by running `koji wait-repo f18-build
--build=debconf-1.5.49-3.fc18`

you may see when using:
bodhi --list-overrides -u youruser

koji wait-repo f18-build --build=debconf-1.5.49-3.fc18

Successfully waited 0:02 for debconf-1.5.49-3.fc18 to appear in the
f18-build repo

I also add dpkg-1.16.10-4.fc18 to the buildroot right now , so after we
know that dpkg-1.16.10-4.fc18 is in buildroot with :
koji wait-repo f18-build --build=dpkg-1.16.10-4.fc18

According my notes [1] you may submit debhelper. 
I don't know if you want rebuild and resubmit po-debconf for updated
debconf, I think we should do it first and build debhelper with new
po-debconf (on buildroot). 





[1]
1st build dpkg and debconf  
after build po-debconf (depends on debconf)
after build debhelper ( depends on dpkg and po-debconf ) 
after build alien (depends on debhelper) and dh-make (depends on
debhelper )
after review and build pbuilder (depends on dh-make, debhelper and
po-debconf ) 


Thanks,
-- 
Sérgio M. B.

[Sérgio Basto]

On Dom, 2013-06-09 at 13:02 +0300, Oron Peled wrote:
>  > > debconf
>  
>   
>  
>  Went to give it some karma, found an irritating bug.
>  
>  Now it is fixed and pushed to rawhide, f19, f18 (waiting for karma
>  
>  on the last two)
>   
debconf-1.5.49-3.fc18, status stable
>  
>  > > po-debconf
>  
>   
>  
>  Nothing to build here: po-debconf-0:1.0.16-1.nmu2.fc18.noarch is
>  
>  in f18 for quite some time now.
>   
I know but we had update debconf from 1.5.42 to 1.5.49 , should
po-debconf be rebuild ? 
>  
>  > > debhelper
>  
>   
>  
>  As soon as dpkg-1.16.x hits f18. 
dpkg-1.16.10-4.fc18 hits f18 (status stable)
>  
>  > > alien 
Now alien is waiting for debhelper
>  
>  > > dh-make
>  
>  > > pbuilder
>  
>   
>  
>  +1 



Best regards, 

-- 
Sérgio M. B.

[Oron Peled]

On Friday 14 June 2013 17:45:51 Sérgio Basto wrote:
>  On Dom, 2013-06-09 at 13:02 +0300, Oron Peled wrote:
>  > As soon as dpkg-1.16.x hits f18.
>  
>  dpkg-1.16.10-4.fc18 hits f18 (status stable)
>  Now alien is waiting for debhelper 
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/debhelper-9.20120909-1.fc18

Bye,

-- 
Oron Peled                                 Voice: [phone]
oron(a)actcom.co.il                  http://users.actcom.co.il/~oron
"LINUX is tied fairly closely to the 80x86. Not the way to go." 
        - LINUX is obsolete, Andy Tanenbaum, 29 Jan 92.