Re: [PATCH v4 0/2] Custom ${S} series

[Henning Schild <henning.schild@siemens.com>]

Am Wed, 31 Mar 2021 13:07:17 +0530
schrieb vijai kumar <vijaikumar.kanagarajan@gmail.com>:

> Hi,
> 
> On Wed, Mar 31, 2021 at 12:03 PM Vijai Kumar K
> <Vijaikumar_Kanagarajan@mentor.com> wrote:
> >
> > Changes since V3:
> > - Fix build issue with qemumipsel-stretch.
> > (Need to pass --only source with --print-uris, since we are dealing
> > with source package)  
> 
> This case is something interesting. If you see the hello package in
> [1], There are 2 versions of the binary package.
> 
> All x86 and ARM architectures  have version "2.10-1+deb9u1"
> Rest of the architectures like mips, s390 and ppc have "2.10-1+b1"

That is weird on its own. But we probably had this problem even before
this series.
Do those new sources produce working packages for those other arches or
do we really need to find the other sources?

> Since we are using --only-source option to download, apt skips the
> binary to source translation and directly fetches the latest source.
> Which is "2.10-1+deb9u1". That is how it could be done, since the
> recipe here is just the debian source file name.
> But if you see by apt-cache policy the installation candidate for
> mipsel is 2.10-1+b1 and the corresponding source version is "2.10-1".

Maybe we can also download that binary, maybe not store it, to make apt
double check against the binary. Jan found preferences not working for
apt-get source, maybe his case would also benefit from that. What i
understand is that "--only-source" can maybe be skipped to download
binary and source and get a cross check.

> Ideally we should pull 2.10-1 instead of 2.10-1+deb9u1 for mipsel.
> That is what the binary is available for?

We modify the package anyways, i guess it is important to produce a
working package, not too much "taking old sources" because upstream did
not build new ones for that arch.

Henning

> I know a non-maintainer upload will have a different binary package
> version (+bX), but will point to the same source.
> Here there are 2 different sources for different archs.
> I am not sure if there are other such packages which have a similar
> scenario. Just wanted to gather info on it here.
> 
> [1] https://packages.debian.org/stretch/hello
> 
> Thanks,
> Vijai Kumar K
> 
> >
> > CI build succeeded:
> > http://ci.isar-build.org:8080/job/isar_vkk_devel/95/
> >
> > Changes since V2:
> > - Introduce P2 to demonstrate apt:// without ${PV} set.
> > - Address review comment from Henning.
> > - Fix issue where do_apt_unpack is triggered for non apt://
> > SRC_URIs.
> >
> > CI build going on:
> > http://ci.isar-build.org:8080/job/isar_vkk_devel/93/
> >
> > Changes since V1:
> >
> > - Introduce a separate do_apt_unpack task
> >
> > Vijai Kumar K (2):
> >   dpkg-base: Introduce do_apt_unpack
> >   Modify hello to demonstrate apt:// without ${PV}
> >
> >  .../recipes-app/hello/{hello.inc => hello.bb} |  0
> >  meta-isar/recipes-app/hello/hello_2.10.bb     | 11 -------
> >  meta-isar/recipes-app/hello/hello_2.9.bb      |  8 -----
> >  meta/classes/dpkg-base.bbclass                | 29
> > ++++++++++++++++--- 4 files changed, 25 insertions(+), 23
> > deletions(-) rename meta-isar/recipes-app/hello/{hello.inc =>
> > hello.bb} (100%) delete mode 100644
> > meta-isar/recipes-app/hello/hello_2.10.bb delete mode 100644
> > meta-isar/recipes-app/hello/hello_2.9.bb
> >
> > --
> > 2.17.1
> >
> > --
> > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
> > Groups "isar-users" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop
> > receiving emails from it, send an email to
> > isar-users+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com. To view this discussion on
> > the web visit
> > https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/isar-users/20210331063235.6877-1-Vijaikumar_Kanagarajan%40mentor.com.
> >