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

[vijai kumar <vijaikumar.kanagarajan@gmail.com>]

On Wed, Mar 31, 2021 at 2:04 PM Henning Schild
<henning.schild@siemens.com> wrote:
>
> 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?

It does produce a working package. At least for hello.

>
> > 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.

For that we need to know the binary package it generates. Not all
source packages produce binary
packages with the same name. I still believe using --only-source is
right, if the SRC_URI of the recipe is expected to point
to the source package name. Which is by the way is the case.

This also acts as a guard, in case the user incorrectly specifies the
binary package name in SRC_URI.
In such a case do_apt_fetch would simply fail.

>
> > 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.

I agree here.

Some other packages with similar scenarios are mentioned below(not a
complete list).

1. https://packages.debian.org/stretch/zstd
2. https://packages.debian.org/stretch/zsh-static
3. https://packages.debian.org/stretch/apt
4. https://packages.debian.org/stretch/busybox

The updated version comes in via the security feed. Where only x86 and arm based
binaries are uploaded.
This FAQ[1], explains why it is missing for certain archs.
I guess it should be okay to use the new source to generate the debs.
Maybe we could capture this
entire scenario in a doc. I could amend the PR to add some info in one
of the docs.

[1] https://www.debian.org/security/faq#archismissing

Thanks,
Vijai Kumar K

>
> 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.
> > >
>