Debian Bug report logs - #865541
sbuild --apt-distupgrade should not remove build-essential

Full log

Message #40 received at [email protected] (full text, mbox, reply):

Received: (at 865541) by bugs.debian.org; 26 Jun 2017 13:29:57 +0000
From [email protected] Mon Jun 26 13:29:57 2017
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0-bugs.debian.org_2005_01_02
	(2014-02-07) on buxtehude.debian.org
X-Spam-Level: 
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-17.0 required=4.0 tests=BAYES_00,FROMDEVELOPER,
	HAS_BUG_NUMBER,PGPSIGNATURE,X_DEBBUGS_NO_ACK autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
	version=3.4.0-bugs.debian.org_2005_01_02
X-Spam-Bayes: score:0.0000 Tokens: new, 9; hammy, 150; neutral, 106; spammy,
	0. spammytokens: hammytokens:0.000-+--H*c:pgp-sha256, 0.000-+--distupgrade,
	0.000-+--dist-upgrade, 0.000-+--chroots, 0.000-+--H*UA:alot
Return-path: <[email protected]>
Received: from fulda099.startdedicated.de ([62.75.219.30] helo=fulda116.server4you.de)
	by buxtehude.debian.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2)
	(envelope-from <[email protected]>)
	id 1dPU5V-0003Qd-DL
	for [email protected]; Mon, 26 Jun 2017 13:29:57 +0000
Received: from localhost (win7217.informatik.uni-wuerzburg.de [132.187.9.217])
	by mister-muffin.de (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 2B2F82099A;
	Mon, 26 Jun 2017 15:29:55 +0200 (CEST)
Content-Type: multipart/signed; protocol="application/pgp-signature";
 micalg="pgp-sha256"; boundary="===============6807593283750667662=="
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Disposition: inline
To: Raphael Hertzog <[email protected]>
From: Johannes Schauer <[email protected]>
X-Debbugs-No-Ack: kthxbye
In-Reply-To: <[email protected]>
Cc: [email protected]
References: <149814311698.5230.13865838241373431780.reportbug@x260-buxy.home.ouaza.com>
 <149821450039.22149.16673600331916543846@localhost>
 <[email protected]>
 <149836538816.22149.8375536886257395541@localhost>
 <[email protected]>
 <149846849256.22149.9563589641207637710@localhost>
 <[email protected]>
 <149847638005.22149.12946609558949355840@localhost>
 <[email protected]>
Message-ID: <149848379474.22149.12915643760336901860@localhost>
User-Agent: alot/0.5.1
Subject: Re: [buildd-tools-devel] Bug#865541: sbuild --apt-distupgrade should not
 remove build-essential
Date: Mon, 26 Jun 2017 15:29:54 +0200

[Message part 1 (text/plain, inline)]

Hi,

Quoting Raphael Hertzog (2017-06-26 15:00:28)
> On Mon, 26 Jun 2017, Johannes Schauer wrote:
> > > It would because actually I pass "--apt-update --apt-upgrade" but not
> > > "--apt-distupgrade" and I have no ~/.sbuildrc.
> > then why not pass --no-apt-distupgrade?
> Because when I wrote that script, I was probably not aware that
> --apt-distupgrade was the default.

so does the existence of that option help your use-case somehow?

> > > If I call sbuild-update --dist-upgrade, I might understand that you would
> > > like the command to fail.
> > Unfortunately, currently sbuild makes no distinction between how a
> > configuration variable was set, whether it was via the sbuildrc, a
> > commandline switch, an environment variable or whether the user changed
> > nothing and it was just the default.
> > 
> > Adding provisions that would let sbuild know who set a variable and then
> > letting sbuild behave differently depending on how the variable was set would
> > be a big effort.
> 
> I understand this. But you can react differently to the failure in the
> various places where you are calling "$resolver->distupgrade".

What do you mean exactly here?

> > > For a build chroot, we want the opposite... as long as it doesn't break
> > > the build chroot. If the new perl causes the removal of dpkg-dev, then it
> > > should not be dist-upgraded. If it causes the removal of
> > > liblocale-gettext-perl only, then it's fine.
> > 
> > Unfortunately, "apt-mark hold" has the nasty side effect that it not only stops
> > a package from being removed but it also stops a package from being upgraded.
> Hence we start with "apt-get install build-essential" which does upgrade it
> before we mark it back on hold.

Ah right, you indeed said this in your first mail.

So how do you want to solve the issue now for kali? By just passing
--no-apt-distupgrade and upgrading the chroots manually from time to time like
the Debian and Ubuntu buildds do it?

Thanks!

cheers, josch

[signature.asc (application/pgp-signature, inline)]

Send a report that this bug log contains spam.