On Sun, 30 Nov 2025 20:59:02 +0000 Colin Watson <[email protected]> wrote:
Package: dh-exec
Version: 0.30
Severity: normal

In https://salsa.debian.org/ssh-team/openssh/-/commit/53462c50b25a298bea74e0c470538495b6f7db52, I removed a workaround for https://bugs.debian.org/1017023. This caused failures in Salsa CI, but only with "sbuild --arch-any --no-arch-all". The failure can be seen in https://salsa.debian.org/ssh-team/openssh/-/jobs/8675672, and looks like this:

   dh_missing -a
dh_missing: warning: etc/ssh/sshd_config exists in debian/tmp but is not installed to 
anywhere (related file: 
"debian/tmp/dh-exec.ZmmIpkD4/usr/share/openssh/sshd_config")
dh_missing: error: missing files, aborting
        While detecting missing files, dh_missing noted some files with a 
similar name to those
        that were missing.  This error /might/ be resolved by replacing 
references to the
        missing files with the similarly named ones that dh_missing found - 
assuming the content
        is identical.
        As an example, you might want to replace:
         * debian/tmp/dh-exec.ZmmIpkD4/usr/share/openssh/sshd_config
        with:
         * etc/ssh/sshd_config
        in a file in debian/ or as argument to one of the dh_* tools called 
from debian/rules.

[...]

Thanks,

--
Colin Watson (he/him)                              [[email protected]]

[...]
Hi,

I believe the use of `debian/tmp/dh-exec.XXXXXXX` originated before `debhelper` introduced its `debian/.debhelper` folder and therefore `debian/tmp` was the "only" safe place for `dh-exec` to place temporary files for them to be cleaned up later.

However, since we have `debian/.debhelper` now, I believe it would be completely safe for `dh-exec` to use `debian/.debhelper/_dh-exec/...` (to namespace its files and to ensure it does not clash with anything `debhelper` would use for `dh-exec` itself).

I am unsure if it will fully fix the problem here or only hide cosmetic problem of showing the `dh-exec.XXXXXXX` tmpfile. Nevertheless, it might be worth a shot. If nothing else, it would also side step the problem in #993762 - although #993762 seems like a missing barrier.

Best regards,
Niels

Attachment: OpenPGP_signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature

Reply via email to