Re: [PATCH 1/2] meta: remove dead code from buildchroot script

[Baurzhan Ismagulov <ibr@radix50.net>]

On Wed, May 06, 2020 at 05:40:44PM +0200, Henning Schild wrote:
> I would conclude that those patches seem to work. We can merge them
> later with the fix, but whoever comes up with the fix might want to use
> them.

Not to mean your patches are useless, those look good to me, I'd like to apply
them in the course of the usual review process. My response was aimed at
sharing the current state of the analysis to move forward faster and avoid
duplicated effort.


> I think if we find a hen-and-egg problem we found a Debian bug and can
> lean back after reporting. But that needs further analysis and someone
> taking care of the issue and possible involving upstream.

Seems I haven't described it clearly. The hen-and-egg problem I refer to is:

Current state: Don't parse Build-Depends of e.g. libhello-dev to avoid
maintaining own parser -> use mk-build-deps to generate a dummy package that
Depends on Build-Depends of libhello-dev -> mk-build-deps in bullseye seems to
generate a source package that has Build-Depends itself. What now? We have to
install Build-Depends of libhello-cross-build-deps before we build and install
it. So I don't think this is a Debian bug, it's a matter of how we handle
installing Build-Depends of e.g. libhello-dev. Yes, we'll deal with that in a
second step, this explanation says nothing against your patches.

The solutions I was talking about:

Option 1: If libhello source package is in isar-apt, the Debian way would be to
apt-get build-dep libhello. If not, we should look at having it there.

Option 2: If the above is not possible ATM, we should look at parsing the
strings. Seems that dpkg has a Perl API. From ELBE folks I've heard that they
use python-debian (not sure whether it has this specific feature). I agree that
it should be an upstream solution. However, we might need to maintain it from
time to time.


> At the moment i will not be able to do that, i just felt i should fix
> my code that swallowed the debug output.

Got it, I see no problem with that.


With kind regards,
Baurzhan.