Debian packaging question

Debian packaging question

[Gary Lowell]

Hi -

I'm looking for advice on debian multiple architecture repositories.  To date we have been building ceph debian packages on two different machines for the i386 and amd64 platforms, rsyncing the results to a common directory on the build host, then putting the results together using the reprepro command to push out to ceph.com.  As all the packages are architecture=linux-any, the arch is embedded in the file names and we don't have any collisions.

The new libcephfs-java, which is architecture=all, ends up being built twice with the same resulting file name, but different checksums depending on where it was built. Not unexpectedly, reprepro complains about this.

I know just enough about debian packaging to be a danger to myself and others. I can see how to fix up the checksums after the fact, but what is the right way to fix the problem ?

Thanks,
Gary

Re: Debian packaging question

[Wido den Hollander]

Hi,

On 12/11/2012 01:19 PM, Gary Lowell wrote:
> Hi -
>
> I'm looking for advice on debian multiple architecture repositories.  To date we have been building ceph debian packages on two different machines for the i386 and amd64 platforms, rsyncing the results to a common directory on the build host, then putting the results together using the reprepro command to push out to ceph.com.  As all the packages are architecture=linux-any, the arch is embedded in the file names and we don't have any collisions.
>
> The new libcephfs-java, which is architecture=all, ends up being built twice with the same resulting file name, but different checksums depending on where it was built. Not unexpectedly, reprepro complains about this.
>
> I know just enough about debian packaging to be a danger to myself and others. I can see how to fix up the checksums after the fact, but what is the right way to fix the problem ?
>

I assume you are building with "dpkg-buildpackage" ?

The manpage shows:

"-B     Specifies a binary-only build, limited to architecture dependent 
packages.  Passed to dpkg-genchanges."

"-A     Specifies a binary-only build, limited to architecture 
independent packages. Passed to dpkg-genchanges."

So on the i386 and amd64 machines you'd run with -B and sync them to 
ceph.com

On one of the machines you'd also run with -A which should produce the 
architecture independent packages like libcephfs-java.

That's the theory, I haven't tested it :)

Wido

> Thanks,
> Gary
>
>
> --
> To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe ceph-devel" in
> the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
> More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
>

Re: Debian packaging question

[Sage Weil]

On Mon, 10 Dec 2012, Gary Lowell wrote:
> Hi -
> 
> I'm looking for advice on debian multiple architecture repositories.  
> To date we have been building ceph debian packages on two different 
> machines for the i386 and amd64 platforms, rsyncing the results to a 
> common directory on the build host, then putting the results together 
> using the reprepro command to push out to ceph.com.  As all the packages 
> are architecture=linux-any, the arch is embedded in the file names and 
> we don't have any collisions.
> 
> The new libcephfs-java, which is architecture=all, ends up being built 
> twice with the same resulting file name, but different checksums 
> depending on where it was built. Not unexpectedly, reprepro complains 
> about this.

Can we just ignore the second attempt that fails?  Or only try to add the 
arch=all .dsc once?

sage

Re: Debian packaging question

[Gary Lowell]

On Dec 10, 2012, at 9:34 PM, Wido den Hollander wrote:

> Hi,
> 
> On 12/11/2012 01:19 PM, Gary Lowell wrote:
>> Hi -
>> 
>> I'm looking for advice on debian multiple architecture repositories.  To date we have been building ceph debian packages on two different machines for the i386 and amd64 platforms, rsyncing the results to a common directory on the build host, then putting the results together using the reprepro command to push out to ceph.com.  As all the packages are architecture=linux-any, the arch is embedded in the file names and we don't have any collisions.
>> 
>> The new libcephfs-java, which is architecture=all, ends up being built twice with the same resulting file name, but different checksums depending on where it was built. Not unexpectedly, reprepro complains about this.
>> 
>> I know just enough about debian packaging to be a danger to myself and others. I can see how to fix up the checksums after the fact, but what is the right way to fix the problem ?
>> 
> 
> I assume you are building with "dpkg-buildpackage" ?
> 
> The manpage shows:
> 
> "-B     Specifies a binary-only build, limited to architecture dependent packages.  Passed to dpkg-genchanges."
> 
> "-A     Specifies a binary-only build, limited to architecture independent packages. Passed to dpkg-genchanges."
> 
> So on the i386 and amd64 machines you'd run with -B and sync them to ceph.com
> 
> On one of the machines you'd also run with -A which should produce the architecture independent packages like libcephfs-java.
> 
> That's the theory, I haven't tested it :)
> 
> Wido

Thanks Wido.  We're using pbuilder, but it looks like it has similar options, or can pass an option string to dpkg_buildpackage.   I'll do some testing.

Cheers,
Gary

Re: Debian packaging question

[Gary Lowell]

On Dec 10, 2012, at 9:34 PM, Sage Weil wrote:

> On Mon, 10 Dec 2012, Gary Lowell wrote:
>> Hi -
>> 
>> I'm looking for advice on debian multiple architecture repositories.  
>> To date we have been building ceph debian packages on two different 
>> machines for the i386 and amd64 platforms, rsyncing the results to a 
>> common directory on the build host, then putting the results together 
>> using the reprepro command to push out to ceph.com.  As all the packages 
>> are architecture=linux-any, the arch is embedded in the file names and 
>> we don't have any collisions.
>> 
>> The new libcephfs-java, which is architecture=all, ends up being built 
>> twice with the same resulting file name, but different checksums 
>> depending on where it was built. Not unexpectedly, reprepro complains 
>> about this.
> 
> Can we just ignore the second attempt that fails?  Or only try to add the 
> arch=all .dsc once?

For 0.55 that's pretty much what I did and it still required fixing up the changelog checksums before reprepro would run without error.  I was hoping for a cleaner solution.    Wido's suggestion looks like it will allow me to build just one version libcephfs-java, which will help, and shouldn't require much change to the build scripts.

Cheers,
Gary

Re: Debian packaging question

[James Page]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA256

On 11/12/12 06:32, Gary Lowell wrote:
>>> 
>>> I assume you are building with "dpkg-buildpackage" ?
>>> 
>>> The manpage shows:
>>> 
>>> "-B     Specifies a binary-only build, limited to architecture
>>> dependent packages.  Passed to dpkg-genchanges."
>>> 
>>> "-A     Specifies a binary-only build, limited to architecture
>>> independent packages. Passed to dpkg-genchanges."
>>> 
>>> So on the i386 and amd64 machines you'd run with -B and sync
>>> them to ceph.com
>>> 
>>> On one of the machines you'd also run with -A which should
>>> produce the architecture independent packages like
>>> libcephfs-java.
>>> 
>>> That's the theory, I haven't tested it :)
>>> 
>>> Wido
> Thanks Wido.  We're using pbuilder, but it looks like it has
> similar options, or can pass an option string to dpkg_buildpackage.
> I'll do some testing.

"--binary-arch" will limit a pbuilder build to the target binary
architecture only; I would recommend you use this with the amd64 build
and build the arch: all packages out of the i386 build; this is what
happens in the official Ubuntu builders.

Cheers

James

- -- 
James Page
Ubuntu Core Developer
Debian Maintainer
james.page@ubuntu.com
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.11 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with undefined - http://www.enigmail.net/

iQIcBAEBCAAGBQJQxwWpAAoJEL/srsug59jDCRcP/i7IEUboQANGevKBVsh4bIeV
PiHAJGyHX/ljEkxhCpVI2dKxJxW2d6oZDKHwJarZlrPmYxGV5GXdcRcDlR2Z5Qvt
MD0Hy8JnigJ+dvpo5pKLAFPA0HbKw/5bNyYhkLUwAyVjkPxhG2EEgbggUtQVgWjm
nNlsvgvV5czR8HKgKoqQvfNzP4vBpq5STLt3TFqG8qDxYbAQK9ZyBsJVpH710aCn
gALasDTODjY9AttadvYnJbjKoaIkgmlrGZbin5Zdy87XD41mG9HtlNKbAeJ2rAPM
BEDLcMAeg6BXSuu9sSUrgNl36UmEkwnDudMZzezin/ubhQXsHDfaDjd3Dgdl8brx
LsX5fziLPvWPdCs9LzAiPYiMPde9+911Wk/N3Jbf8mLL3M5/U/5sYv0M9SD70NGA
67JbktN66RApA0WV9IZqDOgGNLLImI+nXmlHNkGRlm9XFez2pVjYI0CSq0vZonYN
wU/ISi7V94AF6TAb7LxF8O8JDFBXlz2fHrFS9T2CLvb4jRP8TLFPHoWLRu+3lGbD
pdimZK9fd35XNdI/1167Yafj9A8VvNUgZcGFb4bc4u5GJsND+0S6khTI2ZStv2a8
SyXdh4LxRePB1TC/jpMV/JKjYktMU7dhGDWM6Phgod/gUUA/cyWU9ROXXukCV98M
CzC76vescwKVjRxBogR7
=N76U
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

Re: Debian packaging question

[Gary Lowell]

On Dec 11, 2012, at 2:06 AM, James Page wrote:

> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA256
> 
> On 11/12/12 06:32, Gary Lowell wrote:
>>>> 
>>>> I assume you are building with "dpkg-buildpackage" ?
>>>> 
>>>> The manpage shows:
>>>> 
>>>> "-B     Specifies a binary-only build, limited to architecture
>>>> dependent packages.  Passed to dpkg-genchanges."
>>>> 
>>>> "-A     Specifies a binary-only build, limited to architecture
>>>> independent packages. Passed to dpkg-genchanges."
>>>> 
>>>> So on the i386 and amd64 machines you'd run with -B and sync
>>>> them to ceph.com
>>>> 
>>>> On one of the machines you'd also run with -A which should
>>>> produce the architecture independent packages like
>>>> libcephfs-java.
>>>> 
>>>> That's the theory, I haven't tested it :)
>>>> 
>>>> Wido
>> Thanks Wido.  We're using pbuilder, but it looks like it has
>> similar options, or can pass an option string to dpkg_buildpackage.
>> I'll do some testing.
> 
> "--binary-arch" will limit a pbuilder build to the target binary
> architecture only; I would recommend you use this with the amd64 build
> and build the arch: all packages out of the i386 build; this is what
> happens in the official Ubuntu builders.
> 

Hi James,

I thought this was going to be the easy solution, but on running a quick test, we are already calling pbuilder with the --binary-arch option and it its building the java package anyway.    It looks like there is a deeper issue in that we building the java package in the default target.  It looks like for this to work, we need to move the java library build to it's own target in the Makefile, and build that target from the binary-indep target in the debian rules file.   Does this sound like I'm on the right track ?

Thanks,
Gary



 It looks like for this to work, we need to have architecture specific and independent targets in both the debian rules file and the Makefiles.

Re: Debian packaging question

[James Page]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA256

On 11/12/12 23:00, Gary Lowell wrote:
> On Dec 11, 2012, at 2:06 AM, James Page wrote:
> 
>>> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA256
>>> 
>>> On 11/12/12 06:32, Gary Lowell wrote:
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> I assume you are building with "dpkg-buildpackage"
>>>>>>>>> ?
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> The manpage shows:
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> "-B     Specifies a binary-only build, limited to
>>>>>>>>> architecture dependent packages.  Passed to
>>>>>>>>> dpkg-genchanges."
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> "-A     Specifies a binary-only build, limited to
>>>>>>>>> architecture independent packages. Passed to
>>>>>>>>> dpkg-genchanges."
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> So on the i386 and amd64 machines you'd run with -B
>>>>>>>>> and sync them to ceph.com
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> On one of the machines you'd also run with -A which
>>>>>>>>> should produce the architecture independent
>>>>>>>>> packages like libcephfs-java.
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> That's the theory, I haven't tested it :)
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> Wido
>>>>> Thanks Wido.  We're using pbuilder, but it looks like it
>>>>> has similar options, or can pass an option string to
>>>>> dpkg_buildpackage. I'll do some testing.
>>> 
>>> "--binary-arch" will limit a pbuilder build to the target
>>> binary architecture only; I would recommend you use this with
>>> the amd64 build and build the arch: all packages out of the
>>> i386 build; this is what happens in the official Ubuntu
>>> builders.
>>> 
> Hi James,
> 
> I thought this was going to be the easy solution, but on running a
> quick test, we are already calling pbuilder with the --binary-arch
> option and it its building the java package anyway.    It looks
> like there is a deeper issue in that we building the java package
> in the default target.  It looks like for this to work, we need to
> move the java library build to it's own target in the Makefile, and
> build that target from the binary-indep target in the debian rules
> file.   Does this sound like I'm on the right track ?

Gah - this will bite when I do the next upload to Ubuntu as well then;
 Can I suggest that we rework debian/rules for debhelper >= 7 and use
overrides rather than the current 'old style' rules which define all
tasks?  I was toying with doing this anyway (and have it working
locally) - it does cut out some of the content from d/rules and makes
it a bit more *magic*

Thoughts?  I'm happy to raise a pull request for this.

- -- 
James Page
Ubuntu Core Developer
Debian Maintainer
james.page@ubuntu.com
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.11 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with undefined - http://www.enigmail.net/
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=f4FX
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

Re: Debian packaging question

[Sage Weil]

On Wed, 12 Dec 2012, James Page wrote:
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA256
> 
> On 11/12/12 23:00, Gary Lowell wrote:
> > On Dec 11, 2012, at 2:06 AM, James Page wrote:
> > 
> >>> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA256
> >>> 
> >>> On 11/12/12 06:32, Gary Lowell wrote:
> >>>>>>>>> 
> >>>>>>>>> I assume you are building with "dpkg-buildpackage"
> >>>>>>>>> ?
> >>>>>>>>> 
> >>>>>>>>> The manpage shows:
> >>>>>>>>> 
> >>>>>>>>> "-B     Specifies a binary-only build, limited to
> >>>>>>>>> architecture dependent packages.  Passed to
> >>>>>>>>> dpkg-genchanges."
> >>>>>>>>> 
> >>>>>>>>> "-A     Specifies a binary-only build, limited to
> >>>>>>>>> architecture independent packages. Passed to
> >>>>>>>>> dpkg-genchanges."
> >>>>>>>>> 
> >>>>>>>>> So on the i386 and amd64 machines you'd run with -B
> >>>>>>>>> and sync them to ceph.com
> >>>>>>>>> 
> >>>>>>>>> On one of the machines you'd also run with -A which
> >>>>>>>>> should produce the architecture independent
> >>>>>>>>> packages like libcephfs-java.
> >>>>>>>>> 
> >>>>>>>>> That's the theory, I haven't tested it :)
> >>>>>>>>> 
> >>>>>>>>> Wido
> >>>>> Thanks Wido.  We're using pbuilder, but it looks like it
> >>>>> has similar options, or can pass an option string to
> >>>>> dpkg_buildpackage. I'll do some testing.
> >>> 
> >>> "--binary-arch" will limit a pbuilder build to the target
> >>> binary architecture only; I would recommend you use this with
> >>> the amd64 build and build the arch: all packages out of the
> >>> i386 build; this is what happens in the official Ubuntu
> >>> builders.
> >>> 
> > Hi James,
> > 
> > I thought this was going to be the easy solution, but on running a
> > quick test, we are already calling pbuilder with the --binary-arch
> > option and it its building the java package anyway.    It looks
> > like there is a deeper issue in that we building the java package
> > in the default target.  It looks like for this to work, we need to
> > move the java library build to it's own target in the Makefile, and
> > build that target from the binary-indep target in the debian rules
> > file.   Does this sound like I'm on the right track ?
> 
> Gah - this will bite when I do the next upload to Ubuntu as well then;
>  Can I suggest that we rework debian/rules for debhelper >= 7 and use
> overrides rather than the current 'old style' rules which define all
> tasks?  I was toying with doing this anyway (and have it working
> locally) - it does cut out some of the content from d/rules and makes
> it a bit more *magic*
> 
> Thoughts?  I'm happy to raise a pull request for this.

Yes, please!  In the meantime, does build-indep sound like a valid 
workaround?  (This hiccup has been delaying some simple fixes in 0.55.1, 
but unless there is a quick fix I think we'll just release it without the 
java bindings for now to get those fixes out to people.)

Thanks-
sage

Re: Debian packaging question

[James Page]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA256

On 12/12/12 15:44, Sage Weil wrote:
>>> I thought this was going to be the easy solution, but on
>>> running a
>>>>> quick test, we are already calling pbuilder with the
>>>>> --binary-arch option and it its building the java package
>>>>> anyway.    It looks like there is a deeper issue in that we
>>>>> building the java package in the default target.  It looks
>>>>> like for this to work, we need to move the java library
>>>>> build to it's own target in the Makefile, and build that
>>>>> target from the binary-indep target in the debian rules 
>>>>> file.   Does this sound like I'm on the right track ?
>>> 
>>> Gah - this will bite when I do the next upload to Ubuntu as
>>> well then; Can I suggest that we rework debian/rules for
>>> debhelper >= 7 and use overrides rather than the current 'old
>>> style' rules which define all tasks?  I was toying with doing
>>> this anyway (and have it working locally) - it does cut out
>>> some of the content from d/rules and makes it a bit more
>>> *magic*
>>> 
>>> Thoughts?  I'm happy to raise a pull request for this.
> Yes, please!  In the meantime, does build-indep sound like a valid
>  workaround?  (This hiccup has been delaying some simple fixes in
> 0.55.1, but unless there is a quick fix I think we'll just release
> it without the java bindings for now to get those fixes out to
> people.)

Yes; I'd recommend looking at the postfix source package on how todo
this with the binary-arch and binary-indep targets:

http://bazaar.launchpad.net/~ubuntu-branches/ubuntu/raring/postfix/raring/view/head:/debian/rules

- -i and -a flags and the differentiator between -i(ndependent) and
- -a(rchitecture) builds

- -- 
James Page
Ubuntu Core Developer
Debian Maintainer
james.page@ubuntu.com
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.11 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with undefined - http://www.enigmail.net/

iQIcBAEBCAAGBQJQyPMkAAoJEL/srsug59jD10EP/iO9IFmSgIetIEJVCdvxuTvE
Vb9eLt9fT1Z3Www63RLzQJZUi870slQM8/62ivjTRDn+zMvf2TJFeU+tVBF3tmT+
/fSwJPkMld/uC92uQUS4NHwnmVdeD4Ns5MNDSJ6XgLAm+7uZgGD0k9SAj7ILIBzm
QzTnLon1DxTG77nUxkyj0aNxaDH9SeOAxy3K6DL/qieQH1vYaUB6xWTqZjk4LoiH
CBGU289PGKkmQmX52CLXCyITjDGrZrJxpsiv7PiFL5Uz7v+udLkkjaOaiS5r5Hv3
eXgXkNGt3sQvFpQbcNXViP5BjZ9+m20KLxizazKaXsnxMpcq7K3qfblm4SoBtPvu
YsORgD1osY2jyJtBiqAnbYA3N32uMM9jxJ4Gk36Mkh5ksJPkzQULKYaJyskLTfXE
v5akVn+6p/G3Jl8DXE7+QzQCTYc7A9DvF3I3GWDFQMaDtsQtm4IwXpyAuURt6EJ6
EsLCb6wWG2UfMzk8cvltNDelfYuQMqQqx1jEY/BlhRt9uu13oJEe6pGB1DAd9iax
fEpUr/0sicqn7ElgK+cuBiT13qi1+klYHfEYlHS/+JdGcmaN2q5lUPkvfc3D8A9g
30736F0+s+LNCHIqIip1sav5JAC7ZmhTCcb+1ll+J+qvGO1kKzbsHc4D932EuBbo
T+HX0+YTFvrt8pUATjLd
=IHTl
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

Re: Debian packaging question

[James Page]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA256

On 12/12/12 15:44, Sage Weil wrote:
>>> Gah - this will bite when I do the next upload to Ubuntu as
>>> well then; Can I suggest that we rework debian/rules for
>>> debhelper >= 7 and use overrides rather than the current 'old
>>> style' rules which define all tasks?  I was toying with doing
>>> this anyway (and have it working locally) - it does cut out
>>> some of the content from d/rules and makes it a bit more
>>> *magic*
>>> 
>>> Thoughts?  I'm happy to raise a pull request for this.
> Yes, please!  In the meantime, does build-indep sound like a valid
>  workaround?  (This hiccup has been delaying some simple fixes in
> 0.55.1, but unless there is a quick fix I think we'll just release
> it without the java bindings for now to get those fixes out to
> people.)

Try this -
https://github.com/javacruft/ceph/commit/eb9516b92fbf1d09376ad86bc081d927f47656c0

I've given it a quick sniff locally to check the package build process
generates the arch:all packages when requested (and does not when a
architecture specific build is requested).

- -- 
James Page
Ubuntu Core Developer
Debian Maintainer
james.page@ubuntu.com
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.11 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with undefined - http://www.enigmail.net/
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=D6vl
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

Re: Debian packaging question

[Gary Lowell]

On Dec 12, 2012, at 2:17 PM, James Page wrote:

> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA256
> 
> On 12/12/12 15:44, Sage Weil wrote:
>>>> Gah - this will bite when I do the next upload to Ubuntu as
>>>> well then; Can I suggest that we rework debian/rules for
>>>> debhelper >= 7 and use overrides rather than the current 'old
>>>> style' rules which define all tasks?  I was toying with doing
>>>> this anyway (and have it working locally) - it does cut out
>>>> some of the content from d/rules and makes it a bit more
>>>> *magic*
>>>> 
>>>> Thoughts?  I'm happy to raise a pull request for this.
>> Yes, please!  In the meantime, does build-indep sound like a valid
>> workaround?  (This hiccup has been delaying some simple fixes in
>> 0.55.1, but unless there is a quick fix I think we'll just release
>> it without the java bindings for now to get those fixes out to
>> people.)
> 
> Try this -
> https://github.com/javacruft/ceph/commit/eb9516b92fbf1d09376ad86bc081d927f47656c0
> 
> I've given it a quick sniff locally to check the package build process
> generates the arch:all packages when requested (and does not when a
> architecture specific build is requested).
> 

Hi James -

I took your new rules file out for a spin.  It built ok, but we still got the libcephfs-java_0.55.1-1precise_all.deb built despite the --binary-arch flag.  The command used for the build is:

sudo pbuilder build --binary-arch --debug --distribution precise --basetgz /srv/debian-base/precise.tgz --buildresult /tmp/release/0.55.1/ --debbuildopts '-j8 -b' /tmp/release/0.55.1/ceph_0.55.1-1precise.dsc

And the log shows the -B option on dpkg-buildpackage:

I: Building the package
I: Running cd tmp/buildd/*/ && env PATH="/usr/lib/ccache:/usr/sbin:/usr/bin:/sbin:/bin" dpkg-buildpackage -us -uc   -B -j8 -b -rfakeroot

I'm not sure what to look at next.

Thanks,
Gary

Re: Debian packaging question

[James Page]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA256

On 12/12/12 23:38, Gary Lowell wrote:
> I took your new rules file out for a spin.  It built ok, but we
> still got the libcephfs-java_0.55.1-1precise_all.deb built despite
> the --binary-arch flag.  The command used for the build is:
> 
> sudo pbuilder build --binary-arch --debug --distribution precise
> --basetgz /srv/debian-base/precise.tgz --buildresult
> /tmp/release/0.55.1/ --debbuildopts '-j8 -b'
> /tmp/release/0.55.1/ceph_0.55.1-1precise.dsc
> 
> And the log shows the -B option on dpkg-buildpackage:
> 
> I: Building the package I: Running cd tmp/buildd/*/ && env
> PATH="/usr/lib/ccache:/usr/sbin:/usr/bin:/sbin:/bin"
> dpkg-buildpackage -us -uc   -B -j8 -b -rfakeroot


I think that the "--debbuildopts '-j8 -b'" might be trouncing the
- --binary-arch flag - I'll get pbuilder setup and give it a test - I
normally use sbuild (for which the packaging changes did have the
desired effect).



- -- 
James Page
Ubuntu Core Developer
Debian Maintainer
james.page@ubuntu.com
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.11 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with undefined - http://www.enigmail.net/
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=dOQW
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

Re: Debian packaging question

[Gary Lowell]

On Dec 13, 2012, at 1:09 AM, James Page wrote:

> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA256
> 
> On 12/12/12 23:38, Gary Lowell wrote:
>> I took your new rules file out for a spin.  It built ok, but we
>> still got the libcephfs-java_0.55.1-1precise_all.deb built despite
>> the --binary-arch flag.  The command used for the build is:
>> 
>> sudo pbuilder build --binary-arch --debug --distribution precise
>> --basetgz /srv/debian-base/precise.tgz --buildresult
>> /tmp/release/0.55.1/ --debbuildopts '-j8 -b'
>> /tmp/release/0.55.1/ceph_0.55.1-1precise.dsc
>> 
>> And the log shows the -B option on dpkg-buildpackage:
>> 
>> I: Building the package I: Running cd tmp/buildd/*/ && env
>> PATH="/usr/lib/ccache:/usr/sbin:/usr/bin:/sbin:/bin"
>> dpkg-buildpackage -us -uc   -B -j8 -b -rfakeroot
> 
> 
> I think that the "--debbuildopts '-j8 -b'" might be trouncing the
> - --binary-arch flag - I'll get pbuilder setup and give it a test - I
> normally use sbuild (for which the packaging changes did have the
> desired effect).


I does appear to have been the --debbuildopts causing the problem.  The combination of your rules file update and removing  --debbuildopts  built just the arch dependent packages.  

Thanks for the help.

Cheers,
Gary

Re: Debian packaging question

[James Page]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA256

On 14/12/12 04:38, Gary Lowell wrote:
>> I think that the "--debbuildopts '-j8 -b'" might be trouncing
>> the
>>> - --binary-arch flag - I'll get pbuilder setup and give it a
>>> test - I normally use sbuild (for which the packaging changes
>>> did have the desired effect).
> 
> I does appear to have been the --debbuildopts causing the problem.
> The combination of your rules file update and removing
> --debbuildopts  built just the arch dependent packages.

Good - I'd not managed to actually test this out (I was struggling
with pbuilder).

> Thanks for the help.

No problem

Cheers

James

- -- 
James Page
Ubuntu Core Developer
Debian Maintainer
james.page@ubuntu.com
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.11 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with undefined - http://www.enigmail.net/
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=oil3
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----