On Fri, Aug 01, 2014 at 12:23:38AM +0100, peter green wrote: > Debian autobuilders are currently refusing to build runit on many > architectures (both official and unofficial) with the following > message[1][2]
> runit build-depends on missing: > - empty-dependency-after-parsing > The immediate cause seems to be that runit recently removed procps from it's > build-depends leaving the only build-dependency an arch qualified one, > specifically. > Build-Depends: dietlibc-dev (>> 0.28-0) [alpha amd64 arm hppa i386 ia64 mips > mipsel powerpc ppc64 s390 sparc] > Googling "empty-dependency-after-parsing" finds a single result which seems > to be a patch to remove the code generating it from wanna-build along with > some other code. [3] The patch description says that the removed > functionality is now in dose but doesn't specifically say if the particular > behviour on empty dependencies crossed over or not and a reply indicates > that the patch may not actually have been commited. Comments in the code > removed by the patch also hint that dpkg is also unhappy with this situation > "At least as of now, empty is also an error from Dpkg::Deps, so better just > prevent anything from building". > So I decided to try a manual build on armhf (one of the affected > architectures ). The package built successfully. Furthermore I don't see > anything in policy that would forbid a package's only build dependency. > Therefore IMO anything that fails to handle this case correctly is buggy. Do > other people agree? Technically correct. OTOH, an empty build-dependency field means the package is not using debhelper for its build, but instead has some grotesque by-hand debian/rules file. So this error will only ever affect packages that are not using modern best-practice packaging. I'm sure I could easily find a volunteer to submit a patch switching runit to use dh(1), to make this issue go away for you. > if so where should wanna-build bugs be filed (since wanna-build is not > currently in Debian)? does anyone have a simple testcase to see if the > assertion in the comment about Dpkg::Deps is also true? There is a buildd.debian.org virtual package in the BTS: http://bugs.debian.org/buildd.debian.org Cheers, -- Steve Langasek Give me a lever long enough and a Free OS Debian Developer to set it on, and I can move the world. Ubuntu Developer http://www.debian.org/ slanga...@ubuntu.com vor...@debian.org
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
