Comments on deb-pkg patch series

Comments on deb-pkg patch series

[Frans Pop]

Below some comments on the patch series submitted yesterday by Maximilian 
Attems. I was not subscribed to the kbuild list, so apologies for 
breaking the thread. It would have been nice if the patches had been CCed 
to lkml for general review.

I have some patches of my own that I'll submit later today.

FYI: Like Max I am a DD, but unlike him I'm not a member of the kernel 
teamm. I have however been using the deb-pkg target intensively over the 
past year and a half for all my kernel testing on 4 different arches.

General comment:
It looks to me as if this patch series is trying to make the deb-pkg 
target into something it is not. It is not a target that produces perfect 
and Debian policy-compliant packages. Instead it is a very basic method 
to create an installable kernel image package direct from upstream 
source.

[PATCH 1/7] deb-pkg: Beautify changelog
            http://marc.info/?l=linux-kbuild&m=123851278623264&w=2

> -  * A standard release
> +  * New upstream release

In my own patch series I have an alternative, which IMO better matches the 
purpose of deb-pkg:
-  * A standard release
+  * Custom built Linux kernel.

The name and email changes seem somewhat overengineered to me, but 
otherwise no objection.

[PATCH 2/7] deb-pkg: Fix Provides field
            http://marc.info/?l=linux-kbuild&m=123851274923192&w=2

No objection.

[PATCH 3/7] deb-pkg: bump standards version
            http://marc.info/?l=linux-kbuild&m=123851275023204&w=2

As deb-pkg only creates binary packages and does not have a source 
package, the created package is not actually source compliant. Instead of 
updating the Standards-Version field we could also simply drop it (as it 
is not strictly required). IMO it's fairly bogus anyway and would make 
for one less thing to maintain.

No strong objection though.

[PATCH 4/7] deb-pkg: Fix Section and Source field
            http://marc.info/?l=linux-kbuild&m=123851275123210&w=2

I strongly disagree with this patch.

linux-2.6 is the source package for official Debian kernels and packages 
built using deb-pkg are NOT built from that source package.
IMO there's no need to change it (the field is required and thus cannot 
simply be dropped). If it does want changing for some reason I'd suggest
"linux-upstream" or similar.

[PATCH 5/7] deb-pkg: Generate a debian/copyright
            http://marc.info/?l=linux-kbuild&m=123851274923195&w=2

As the generated package is not policy compliant anyway, I see see no real 
reason to burden it with a copyright file. No strong objection though.

> +Copyright: 1991 - 2008 Linus Torvalds and others.
s/2008/2009/
> +git://git.eu.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/torvalds/linux-2.6.git
s/eu.//

Also, the git reference is somewhat random as deb-pkg can just as well be 
used to build kernels from any other source tree (stable, mm, tip, ...).

[PATCH 6/7] deb-pkg: Fix generated packagename
            http://marc.info/?l=linux-kbuild&m=123851275023201&w=2

This is not actually a "fix". There's nothing really wrong with the 
current package name, and I actually like the fact that packages built 
using deb-pkg are in a somewhat different namespace than the official 
Debian kernel image packages.

I'd prefer to leave this unchanged, but have no hard objection.

[PATCH 7/7] deb-pkg: generate changelog, copyright and control on demand
            http://marc.info/?l=linux-kbuild&m=123851275123207&w=2

NAK!

This completely breaks the most common use case of deb-pkg. This patch 
would mean that every package would get identical (and incorrect) version 
info in the Debian maintainer files unless you manually clean the debian 
directory before each build.
One of the really great things of deb-pkg is that you can simply 
repeatedly call it after checking out different branches (and cross-build 
for different arches) or during bisections without having to worry about 
such things.

Cheers,
FJP

Re: Comments on deb-pkg patch series

[maximilian attems]

[ adding Theodore Ts'o on CC ]

Sam can you please merge 1-6 of the series as those are not contested.
thanks.

On Wed, Apr 01, 2009 at 06:07:56PM +0200, Frans Pop wrote:
> Below some comments on the patch series submitted yesterday by Maximilian 
> Attems. I was not subscribed to the kbuild list, so apologies for 
> breaking the thread. It would have been nice if the patches had been CCed 
> to lkml for general review.
> 
> I have some patches of my own that I'll submit later today.

great.

the patches were submitted to the relevant subsystem,
no need to flood lkml with such.
 
> FYI: Like Max I am a DD, but unlike him I'm not a member of the kernel 
> teamm. I have however been using the deb-pkg target intensively over the 
> past year and a half for all my kernel testing on 4 different arches.
> 
> General comment:
> It looks to me as if this patch series is trying to make the deb-pkg 
> target into something it is not. It is not a target that produces perfect 
> and Debian policy-compliant packages. Instead it is a very basic method 
> to create an installable kernel image package direct from upstream 
> source.

i strongly disagree, why shouldn't it build policy complian packages.
 
> [PATCH 1/7] deb-pkg: Beautify changelog
>             http://marc.info/?l=linux-kbuild&m=123851278623264&w=2
> 
> > -  * A standard release
> > +  * New upstream release
> 
> In my own patch series I have an alternative, which IMO better matches the 
> purpose of deb-pkg:
> -  * A standard release
> +  * Custom built Linux kernel.
> 
> The name and email changes seem somewhat overengineered to me, but 
> otherwise no objection.

well this nitpicking, anyway no strong objection on a follow up
to my patch anything but "A standard release" sounds better.
usually you will need make deb-pkg due to newer upstream
and is the standard opening of our changelogs ;)
 
> [PATCH 2/7] deb-pkg: Fix Provides field
>             http://marc.info/?l=linux-kbuild&m=123851274923192&w=2
> 
> No objection.
> 
> [PATCH 3/7] deb-pkg: bump standards version
>             http://marc.info/?l=linux-kbuild&m=123851275023204&w=2
> 
> As deb-pkg only creates binary packages and does not have a source 
> package, the created package is not actually source compliant. Instead of 
> updating the Standards-Version field we could also simply drop it (as it 
> is not strictly required). IMO it's fairly bogus anyway and would make 
> for one less thing to maintain.
> 
> No strong objection though.

as we want it policy compliant better say to which one.
 
> [PATCH 4/7] deb-pkg: Fix Section and Source field
>             http://marc.info/?l=linux-kbuild&m=123851275123210&w=2
> 
> I strongly disagree with this patch.
> 
> linux-2.6 is the source package for official Debian kernels and packages 
> built using deb-pkg are NOT built from that source package.
> IMO there's no need to change it (the field is required and thus cannot 
> simply be dropped). If it does want changing for some reason I'd suggest
> "linux-upstream" or similar.

no,
just checkout linux-2.6 git and you'll get per default a matching
linux-2.6 dir, so your arg does not stand.
 
> [PATCH 5/7] deb-pkg: Generate a debian/copyright
>             http://marc.info/?l=linux-kbuild&m=123851274923195&w=2
> 
> As the generated package is not policy compliant anyway, I see see no real 
> reason to burden it with a copyright file. No strong objection though.
> 
> > +Copyright: 1991 - 2008 Linus Torvalds and others.
> s/2008/2009/
> > +git://git.eu.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/torvalds/linux-2.6.git
> s/eu.//
> 
> Also, the git reference is somewhat random as deb-pkg can just as well be 
> used to build kernels from any other source tree (stable, mm, tip, ...).

well a follow up can s/2008/2009/
better have the most important git tree mentioned then none.
 
> [PATCH 6/7] deb-pkg: Fix generated packagename
>             http://marc.info/?l=linux-kbuild&m=123851275023201&w=2
> 
> This is not actually a "fix". There's nothing really wrong with the 
> current package name, and I actually like the fact that packages built 
> using deb-pkg are in a somewhat different namespace than the official 
> Debian kernel image packages.
> 
> I'd prefer to leave this unchanged, but have no hard objection.

no the name is wrong, but as you don't have  an objection...
 
> [PATCH 7/7] deb-pkg: generate changelog, copyright and control on demand
>             http://marc.info/?l=linux-kbuild&m=123851275123207&w=2
> 
> NAK!
> 
> This completely breaks the most common use case of deb-pkg. This patch 
> would mean that every package would get identical (and incorrect) version 
> info in the Debian maintainer files unless you manually clean the debian 
> directory before each build.
> One of the really great things of deb-pkg is that you can simply 
> repeatedly call it after checking out different branches (and cross-build 
> for different arches) or during bisections without having to worry about 
> such things.

big non non to your arguments.
this is explicitly been asked for make deb-pkg,
private follow ups to
https://lists.linux-foundation.org/pipermail/ksummit-2008-discuss/2008-June/000191.html

an rm -rf debian would regenerate them anyway, but i see your args
and be interested how one can support both, the throwaway generation
and keeping specific debian/ files.

-- 
maks

Re: Comments on deb-pkg patch series

[Frans Pop]

On Wednesday 01 April 2009, maximilian attems wrote:
> Sam can you please merge 1-6 of the series as those are not contested.
> thanks.

I continue to object to patch 4.

> the patches were submitted to the relevant subsystem,
> no need to flood lkml with such.

However, they are also patches with a fairly general impact that should be 
reviewed by more people than just the narrow group that is subscribed to 
kbuild. lkml is the generic list and is often CCed in such cases. AFAIK 
most kbuild patches go through lkml.
It's just chance that I saw these and was able to comment.

> > [PATCH 4/7] deb-pkg: Fix Section and Source field
> >             http://marc.info/?l=linux-kbuild&m=123851275123210&w=2
> >
> > I strongly disagree with this patch.
> >
> > linux-2.6 is the source package for official Debian kernels and
> > packages built using deb-pkg are NOT built from that source package.
> > IMO there's no need to change it (the field is required and thus
> > cannot simply be dropped). If it does want changing for some reason
> > I'd suggest "linux-upstream" or similar.
>
> no,
> just checkout linux-2.6 git and you'll get per default a matching
> linux-2.6 dir, so your arg does not stand.

That still does not change the fact that when I build directly from git 
head or whatever other git branch or downloaded upstream source the 
binary package is *not* built from the linux-2.6 source package.

Therefore setting source to linux-2.6 is factually incorrect.

> > [PATCH 7/7] deb-pkg: generate changelog, copyright and control on
> > demand http://marc.info/?l=linux-kbuild&m=123851275123207&w=2
> >
> > NAK!

[...]

> big non non to your arguments.

Please be more verbose. I can't do anything with this comment.

> this is explicitly been asked for make deb-pkg,
> private follow ups to
> https://lists.linux-foundation.org/pipermail/ksummit-2008-discuss/2008-
>June/000191.html

Someone asking for something is no excuse for breaking basic existing 
functionality. If the option to provide different files is really wanted, 
then IMO they should:

1) be provided from some different location, not the debian target dir
2) be provided as *templates* with variables in them for kernel version
   and Debian package version/revision, and possibly for the signature as
   well so those can be replaced with correct values at build time.

However, IMHO this is just adding a lot of complexity for no real gain.

Re: Comments on deb-pkg patch series

[maximilian attems]

On Wed, Apr 01, 2009 at 07:07:29PM +0200, Frans Pop wrote:
> On Wednesday 01 April 2009, maximilian attems wrote:
> > Sam can you please merge 1-6 of the series as those are not contested.
> > thanks.
> 
> I continue to object to patch 4.

your objection on patch 4 is disregarded.
 
> > the patches were submitted to the relevant subsystem,
> > no need to flood lkml with such.
> 
> However, they are also patches with a fairly general impact that should be 
> reviewed by more people than just the narrow group that is subscribed to 
> kbuild. lkml is the generic list and is often CCed in such cases. AFAIK 
> most kbuild patches go through lkml.
> It's just chance that I saw these and was able to comment.

come on, i pointed out this thread to you.
it is enough to post to relevant maintainer list.
subscribe to linux-fs if you interested in vfs changes and so on..
 
> > > [PATCH 4/7] deb-pkg: Fix Section and Source field
> > >             http://marc.info/?l=linux-kbuild&m=123851275123210&w=2
> > >
> > > I strongly disagree with this patch.
> > >
> > > linux-2.6 is the source package for official Debian kernels and
> > > packages built using deb-pkg are NOT built from that source package.
> > > IMO there's no need to change it (the field is required and thus
> > > cannot simply be dropped). If it does want changing for some reason
> > > I'd suggest "linux-upstream" or similar.
> >
> > no,
> > just checkout linux-2.6 git and you'll get per default a matching
> > linux-2.6 dir, so your arg does not stand.
> 
> That still does not change the fact that when I build directly from git 
> head or whatever other git branch or downloaded upstream source the 
> binary package is *not* built from the linux-2.6 source package.
> 
> Therefore setting source to linux-2.6 is factually incorrect.

no it is not more incorrect then setting to linux.
we don't care about corner cases, but go for the general one:
git clone git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/torvalds/linux-2.6.git
cd linux-2.6
make <config>
make deb-pkg

it does *not* matter that linux-2.6 happens to be same name
than the debian linux images source package.
 
[ snipping discussion of patch 7 that will get reworked ]

-- 
maks

Re: Comments on deb-pkg patch series

[Frans Pop]

On Wednesday 01 April 2009, maximilian attems wrote:
> > I continue to object to patch 4.
>
> your objection on patch 4 is disregarded.

Eh, sorry, but that's not up to you. It's fine that you disagree with me. 
But as you're not the owner or primary maintainer of the builddeb script, 
you don't get to "disregard" comments from anybody.

I'm happy to let Sam decide on this based on the given arguments. Maybe 
others will comment too.

> it does *not* matter that linux-2.6 happens to be same name
> than the debian linux images source package.

Technically it does not matter, correct. But for the same reason there is 
also no good reason to make it the same as the debian linux images source 
package.

And as it is factually incorrect I still don't like it. It would very 
simply result in incorrect info if people query their system using tools 
like grep-dpkg, or even if they just just view the package info.

Re: Comments on deb-pkg patch series

[maximilian attems]

On Wed, Apr 01, 2009 at 07:53:52PM +0200, Frans Pop wrote:
> On Wednesday 01 April 2009, maximilian attems wrote:
> > > I continue to object to patch 4.
> >
> > your objection on patch 4 is disregarded.
> 
> Eh, sorry, but that's not up to you. It's fine that you disagree with me. 
> But as you're not the owner or primary maintainer of the builddeb script, 
> you don't get to "disregard" comments from anybody.
> 
> I'm happy to let Sam decide on this based on the given arguments. Maybe 
> others will comment too.

no
on patch 7 you had a technical reason,
thus i agree with you that this needs better thought or work.
 
> > it does *not* matter that linux-2.6 happens to be same name
> > than the debian linux images source package.
> 
> Technically it does not matter, correct. But for the same reason there is 
> also no good reason to make it the same as the debian linux images source 
> package.
> 
> And as it is factually incorrect I still don't like it. It would very 
> simply result in incorrect info if people query their system using tools 
> like grep-dpkg, or even if they just just view the package info.

we in the Debian kernel team use linux-2.6 as we use the linux-2.6 git
tree as upstream, as it happens to be the primary upstream. so i still
miss your point why make deb-pkg shouldn't show that too!

btw this patch also fixes wrong section behaviour of make deb-pkg.

Re: Comments on deb-pkg patch series

[Frans Pop]

On Wednesday 01 April 2009, maximilian attems wrote:
> > Technically it does not matter, correct. But for the same reason
> > there is also no good reason to make it the same as the debian linux
> > images source package.
> >
> > And as it is factually incorrect I still don't like it. It would very
> > simply result in incorrect info if people query their system using
> > tools like grep-dpkg, or even if they just just view the package
> > info.
[...]
> so i still miss your point why make deb-pkg shouldn't show that too!

See quoted text above. Even if a binary package _can_ be built from the 
linux-2.6 source package using deb-pkg, in almost all cases that will 
_not_ be the case. For me that in itself is sufficient reason not to 
set "Source: linux-2.6". It very simply does not reflect the truth.

> btw this patch also fixes wrong section behaviour of make deb-pkg.

Ah, yes. I forgot about that. I do agree with that part of the patch.

With the recent restructuring of the archive the correct section for 
kernel packages would be "kernel" and not "admin", but for deb-pkg we 
probably should postpone that change for a few years as "kernel" is not 
yet valid for stable and oldstable.

Re: Comments on deb-pkg patch series

[maximilian attems]

On Wed, Apr 01, 2009 at 08:35:57PM +0200, Frans Pop wrote:
> On Wednesday 01 April 2009, maximilian attems wrote:
> > > Technically it does not matter, correct. But for the same reason
> > > there is also no good reason to make it the same as the debian linux
> > > images source package.
> > >
> > > And as it is factually incorrect I still don't like it. It would very
> > > simply result in incorrect info if people query their system using
> > > tools like grep-dpkg, or even if they just just view the package
> > > info.
> [...]
> > so i still miss your point why make deb-pkg shouldn't show that too!
> 
> See quoted text above. Even if a binary package _can_ be built from the 
> linux-2.6 source package using deb-pkg, in almost all cases that will 
> _not_ be the case. For me that in itself is sufficient reason not to 
> set "Source: linux-2.6". It very simply does not reflect the truth.

please get your linux-2.6 debianism out of your head. yes most of
the time make deb-pkg will be used by an upstream tarball or git tree.
it will certainly *not* be build by the "source" package linux.
so that is certainly wrong.

i repeat my argument that you have to go for the general case of
linux-2.6, so it will be correct in many cases instead of beeing
always incorrect.

 
> > btw this patch also fixes wrong section behaviour of make deb-pkg.
> 
> Ah, yes. I forgot about that. I do agree with that part of the patch.
> 
> With the recent restructuring of the archive the correct section for 
> kernel packages would be "kernel" and not "admin", but for deb-pkg we 
> probably should postpone that change for a few years as "kernel" is not 
> yet valid for stable and oldstable.

ack, right.

Re: Comments on deb-pkg patch series

[Frans Pop]

This is going to be my last post about this as we're in danger of 
repeating ourselves. IMO the arguments are now clear; others will have
to make the decision here.

On Wednesday 01 April 2009, maximilian attems wrote:
> please get your linux-2.6 debianism out of your head. yes most of
> the time make deb-pkg will be used by an upstream tarball or git tree.
> it will certainly *not* be build by the "source" package linux.
> so that is certainly wrong.

Right. But IMO listing a non-existent source package is actually *better* 
because a .deb built using deb-pkg per definition does not _have_ a 
source package.

> i repeat my argument that you have to go for the general case of
> linux-2.6, so it will be correct in many cases instead of beeing
> always incorrect.

linux-2.6 is not the general case, it is an exception. The general case is 
building from some upstream git branch. (Unless you mean the linux-2.6 
git tree, but that is totally irrelevant as it's not a source _package_.)

The fact that the package refers to a non-existant source package has an 
informational value in itself and because there *is* no source package, 
it is perfectly correct.
It would be better to not list a source package at all, but that's 
impossible due to technical requirements.

As mentioned before, IMO "Source: linux-upstream" would be a better 
choice.

Re: Comments on deb-pkg patch series

[maximilian attems]

On Wed, Apr 01, 2009 at 09:11:09PM +0200, Frans Pop wrote:
> This is going to be my last post about this as we're in danger of 
> repeating ourselves. IMO the arguments are now clear; others will have
> to make the decision here.

well you made your point clear,
but couldn't convince me to not push this patch :)
nor that it has any real negative effect.
 
> On Wednesday 01 April 2009, maximilian attems wrote:
> > please get your linux-2.6 debianism out of your head. yes most of
> > the time make deb-pkg will be used by an upstream tarball or git tree.
> > it will certainly *not* be build by the "source" package linux.
> > so that is certainly wrong.
> 
> Right. But IMO listing a non-existent source package is actually *better* 
> because a .deb built using deb-pkg per definition does not _have_ a 
> source package.
> 
> > i repeat my argument that you have to go for the general case of
> > linux-2.6, so it will be correct in many cases instead of beeing
> > always incorrect.
> 
> linux-2.6 is not the general case, it is an exception. The general case is 
> building from some upstream git branch. (Unless you mean the linux-2.6 
> git tree, but that is totally irrelevant as it's not a source _package_.)

of course i mean the linux-2.6 git tree.
 
> The fact that the package refers to a non-existant source package has an 
> informational value in itself and because there *is* no source package, 
> it is perfectly correct.
> It would be better to not list a source package at all, but that's 
> impossible due to technical requirements.
> 
> As mentioned before, IMO "Source: linux-upstream" would be a better 
> choice.

linux-2.6 is the most used git tree out there,
so it still stands in my eyes as better term then the "linux" Ubuntuism
source package name that make deb-pkg currently uses.

thanks for your input and looking forward to your patch serie.
it be great if you could base it on that serie so that we can
step further onwards in making make deb-pkg the recommended
way of building a linux image deb.

Re: Comments on deb-pkg patch series

[Sam Ravnborg]

On Wed, Apr 01, 2009 at 06:23:20PM +0200, maximilian attems wrote:
> [ adding Theodore Ts'o on CC ]
> 
> Sam can you please merge 1-6 of the series as those are not contested.
> thanks.

Please sort out the input to the various patches and re-send.
Preferably as one tested serie fo patches and not two individual submissions.

I do not know the debian packaging system so you cannot ask me to judge
between two individual submission - you guys need to sort that out yourself.

[Neither do I know rpm for that matter - but thats another story].

I would like to see the patch serie soon so we can get this applied in the .30 timeframe.

	Sam