binutils-avr 2.20-1 FTBFS in maverick (fix and merge with unstable)

[Scott Howard]

binutils-avr 2.20-3 PTS BTS LP universe Yes Failed Failed [UNKNOWN] tar (child): /usr/src/binutils/binutils-*.tar.bz2: Cannot open: No such file or directory [1]

[1] http://udd.debian.org/cgi-bin/ubuntu_ftbfs.cgi

[Benjamin Drung (bdrung)]

The package fails to build with pbuilder on amd64. Please investigate:

dpkg-source -b binutils-avr-2.20.1
dpkg-source: warning: no source format specified in debian/source/format, see dpkg-source(1)
dpkg-source: info: using source format `1.0'
dpkg-source: info: building binutils-avr in binutils-avr_2.20.1-1.tar.gz
dpkg-source: info: building binutils-avr in binutils-avr_2.20.1-1.dsc
 debian/rules build
tar xjf /usr/src/binutils/binutils-*.tar.bz2
tar (child): /usr/src/binutils/binutils-*.tar.bz2: Cannot open: No such file or directory
tar (child): Error is not recoverable: exiting now
tar: Child returned status

[Scott Howard (showard314)]

Hi Benjamin,
The syncs I just filed requires a sync with binutils. Perhaps put this
on hold until binutils catches up (do you know of any plans if that
will happen?) What do you think?

http://packages.qa.debian.org/b/binutils.html

On Sun, Aug 1, 2010 at 7:48 PM, Benjamin Drung <email address hidden> wrote:
> The package fails to build with pbuilder on amd64. Please investigate:
>
> dpkg-source -b binutils-avr-2.20.1
> dpkg-source: warning: no source format specified in debian/source/format, see dpkg-source(1)
> dpkg-source: info: using source format `1.0'
> dpkg-source: info: building binutils-avr in binutils-avr_2.20.1-1.tar.gz
> dpkg-source: info: building binutils-avr in binutils-avr_2.20.1-1.dsc
>  debian/rules build
> tar xjf /usr/src/binutils/binutils-*.tar.bz2
> tar (child): /usr/src/binutils/binutils-*.tar.bz2: Cannot open: No such file or directory
> tar (child): Error is not recoverable: exiting now
> tar: Child returned status
>

[Benjamin Drung (bdrung)]

We have binutils 2.20.51.20100710-1ubuntu2 in maverick. Shouldn't binutils-avr catch up? If binutils-avr requires a special version of binutils, it should specify that in Build-Depends.

[Scott Howard (showard314)]

You're right, Maverick's version is from experimental (that's what was confusing me), binutils-avr is behind. I'll take a look at it.

[Benjamin Drung (bdrung)]

I unsubscribe ubuntu-sponsors for now. Please resubscribe ubuntu-sponsors once you have a working version for maverick.

[Scott Howard (showard314)]

Benjamin, I believe there are three ways to proceed - I'd appreciate your input on choosing:

1) Make binutils-avr work with maverick's binutils (which comes from experimental). I don't want to do this since avr is a unique architecture, and the avr community has put in much work writing and maintaining patches to make the arch work. The patches right now don't apply 100%, and I don't know of any other bugs that have sprung up during development. The branch that is most complete is the the 2.20.1 version, which is the sid version. I can try to make the 2.20.51+svnsnapshots work, but am more confident in the 2.20.1 version and patches.

2) We add a new package, binutils-source2.20.1, which is a sync with the unstable binutils. We then make binutils-avr depend on the new package. That might be confusing to users (having two binutils-source), so we can name it something else (binutils-source-avr2.20.1) and remove it when the experimental/unstable split ends in debian's binutils.

3) I can include the binutils source for 2.20.1 inside the binutils-avr package (it's debian native), and not depend on on any binutils-source.

or the default of not doing anything and living with binutils-avr that ftbfs in maverick.

Thanks,
Scott

[Benjamin Drung (bdrung)]

1) Would be a solution, but it's probably to much work, which should be done by upstream instead.

2) I don't like this. It's not a clean solution.

3) That's my preferred choice.

Having a broken package is not a _solution_.

[Scott Howard (showard314)]

ok, I did 3)

See linked bzr branch and merge, I built the package in my ppa:
https://launchpad.net/~showard314/+archive/ppa

[Benjamin Drung (bdrung)]

I don't like the naming scheme. The build tools aren't happy too:

This package has a Debian revision number but there does not seem to be
an appropriate original tar file or .orig directory in the parent directory;

You may want to use dpkg-source 3.0 (quilt) or 3.0 (native) format. Then you can just add the binutils tarball.

[Launchpad Janitor (janitor)]

This bug was fixed in the package binutils-avr - 2.20.1-1ubuntu1

---------------
binutils-avr (2.20.1-1ubuntu1) maverick; urgency=low

  * Includes binutils source code from unstable (2.20.1) (LP: #612363)
    Fixes FTBFS in maverick due to binutils-source 2.20.51+
    - removed build-depends: binutils-source
    - modified debian/rules to use included src/
    - added copyright info for binutils to debian/copyright
 -- Scott Howard <email address hidden> Wed, 04 Aug 2010 18:34:51 -0400

[Scott Howard (showard314)]

Thanks Benjamin, I don't like the naming scheme either - but I'm not
involved with the debian maintenance and kept the same convention that
they are using (and ubuntu has used previously) see [1], lots of
warnings. I think he avoids the original source as to avoid code
duplication in the archive, and just reuses binutils-source, but you
have to keep updating the -avr whenever the source changes. Thanks
for the sponsor.

[1] http://<email address hidden>#binutils-avr

On Fri, Aug 6, 2010 at 8:25 PM, Launchpad Bug Tracker
<email address hidden> wrote:
> This bug was fixed in the package binutils-avr - 2.20.1-1ubuntu1
>
> ---------------
> binutils-avr (2.20.1-1ubuntu1) maverick; urgency=low
>
>  * Includes binutils source code from unstable (2.20.1) (LP: #612363)
>    Fixes FTBFS in maverick due to binutils-source 2.20.51+
>    - removed build-depends: binutils-source
>    - modified debian/rules to use included src/
>    - added copyright info for binutils to debian/copyright
>  -- Scott Howard <email address hidden>   Wed, 04 Aug 2010 18:34:51 -0400
>
> ** Changed in: binutils-avr (Ubuntu)
>       Status: New => Fix Released
>
> --
> binutils-avr 2.20-1 FTBFS in maverick (fix and merge with unstable)
> https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/612363
> You received this bug notification because you are a direct subscriber
> of the bug.
>
> Status in “binutils-avr” package in Ubuntu: Fix Released
>
> Bug description:
> binutils-avr 2.20-3 PTS  BTS  LP        universe        Yes     Failed  Failed  [UNKNOWN] tar (child): /usr/src/binutils/binutils-*.tar.bz2: Cannot open: No such file or directory [1]
>
>
> [1] http://udd.debian.org/cgi-bin/ubuntu_ftbfs.cgi
>
> To unsubscribe from this bug, go to:
> https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/binutils-avr/+bug/612363/+subscribe
>