Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > linux.debian.bugs.dist > #1017718

Bug#963247: ignition-fuel-tools FTBFS with Protobuf 3.12.3

Show all headers | View raw

[Multipart message — attachments visible in raw view] - view raw

* László Böszörményi (GCS) <gcs@debian.org> [2020-07-12 10:56]:
>> Since ignition-msgs is the only package that has this issue, something
>> like the following should be enough:
>>
>> In debian/control:
>>
>> Depends: libprotobuf-dev (>= ${protobuf:Upstream-Version}), libprotobuf-dev (< ${protobuf:Upstream-Version}.1)
>>
>> In debian/rules:
>>
>> override_dh_gencontrol:
>>         dh_gencontrol -- -Vprotobuf:Upstream-Version="$(shell dpkg-query -W -f '$${Source:Upstream-Version}' libprotobuf-dev)"

Thanks Sebastian for coming up with this :).

>> (This might be a little to tight and depending on >= X.Y, < X.(Y+1)
>> would be enough).
> Right, in minor versions Google does not intend to change ABI I'm pretty sure.

So maybe something like this?

Depends: libprotobuf-dev (>= ${protobuf:Upstream-Version}), libprotobuf-dev (< ${protobuf:Upstream-Version}a)

override_dh_gencontrol:
         dh_gencontrol -- -Vprotobuf:Upstream-Version="$(shell dpkg-query -W -f '$${Source:Upstream-Version}' libprotobuf-dev | cut -d. -f1-2)"

Or would there be a better way?

>> But yes, depending on a protobuf-abi-$VER provided by libprotobuf-dev
>> could also work. It wouldn't work if provided by the shared library,
>> though, as they are co-installable.
> This is correct - I just feel misunderstandable that -dev would
>provide an ABI version and will change that to API if needed.
>@Jochen: You need to update ignition-fuel-tools anyway. Would a
>stricter dependency on libprotobuf-dev be enough for you or should I
>provide an API string in libprotobuf-dev for you?

I think the question is who is in control of bumping the ABI/API 
version. If you think the hack above is enough, then that's fine with 
me. If you want to be in control of it, upstream changes the logic, or 
more packages need it, then a provides makes more sense to me.

Cheers Jochen

Back to linux.debian.bugs.dist | Previous | Next — Previous in thread | Next in thread | Find similar | Unroll thread

Thread

Bug#963247: ignition-fuel-tools FTBFS with Protobuf 3.12.3 László Böszörményi (GCS) <gcs@debian.org> - 2020-06-21 13:40 +0200
  Bug#963247: ignition-fuel-tools FTBFS with Protobuf 3.12.3 Sebastian Ramacher <sramacher@debian.org> - 2020-07-11 17:00 +0200
    Bug#963247: ignition-fuel-tools FTBFS with Protobuf 3.12.3 jspricke@debian.org - 2020-07-11 18:00 +0200
      Bug#963247: ignition-fuel-tools FTBFS with Protobuf 3.12.3 László Böszörményi (GCS) <gcs@debian.org> - 2020-07-11 23:00 +0200
        Bug#963247: ignition-fuel-tools FTBFS with Protobuf 3.12.3 Sebastian Ramacher <sramacher@debian.org> - 2020-07-12 10:40 +0200
          Bug#963247: ignition-fuel-tools FTBFS with Protobuf 3.12.3 László Böszörményi (GCS) <gcs@debian.org> - 2020-07-12 11:10 +0200
            Bug#963247: ignition-fuel-tools FTBFS with Protobuf 3.12.3 jspricke@debian.org - 2020-07-12 16:50 +0200
              Bug#963247: ignition-fuel-tools FTBFS with Protobuf 3.12.3 Sebastian Ramacher <sramacher@debian.org> - 2020-07-13 13:30 +0200
                Bug#963247: ignition-fuel-tools FTBFS with Protobuf 3.12.3 jspricke@debian.org - 2020-07-14 23:30 +0200
                Bug#963247: ignition-fuel-tools FTBFS with Protobuf 3.12.3 jspricke@debian.org - 2020-07-15 15:50 +0200
                Bug#963247: ignition-fuel-tools FTBFS with Protobuf 3.12.3 Sebastian Ramacher <sramacher@debian.org> - 2020-07-15 22:10 +0200

csiph-web