[Bug 19415] new kernel-package breaks official linux-2.6 kernel builds, should not propagate to testing.

Wed Nov 9 14:47:13 UTC 2005

Please do not reply to this email.  You can add comments at
http://bugzilla.ubuntu.com/show_bug.cgi?id=19415
Ubuntu | kernel-package

------- Additional Comments From debzilla at ubuntu.com  2005-11-09 14:47 UTC -------
Message-ID: <87r79prk3m.fsf at glaurung.internal.golden-gryphon.com>
Date: Wed, 09 Nov 2005 08:06:53 -0600
From: Manoj Srivastava <srivasta at golden-gryphon.com>
To: 338283-done at bugs.debian.org
Cc: debian-kernel at lists.debian.org
Subject: Point to an actual bug

Hi,

        You know, the sheer ignorance displayed in this bug report is
 staggering. Firstly, there is no upload to stable; all 10.X uploads
 have been to experimental. Not a big deal, but it just  evidence that
 the reporter has no clue, and is simply reporting out of sheer ill
 will and does not want to have this arguments get confused with
 facts.

> As discussed on irc, the new 10.008 kernel-package was prematurely uploaded to
> unstable, and breaks linux-2.6 builds. The issues at hand are : 

        This is the first thing that happens not to be true.

>   1. the missing config caues manuals not to build

        kernel-package has never been meant t function without a
 .config file; all documentation stresses the need to have one in
 place before calling make-kpkg.  When presented with a case when
 there is none, make-kpkg does its best to create a reasonable .config
 file, as documented, and calls make oldconfig, to let the user answer
 any options that are nwerer.

        The older versions of make-kpkg had a bug, meaning that
 sometimes it failed to look into . and ./debian; this bug is now
 fixed.

        The official process was taking advantage of this bug, and now
  has to be fixed. Not a k-p bug.

>   2. the headers build binaries uneccessarily (but doesn't break build)

        It is not at all clear that the build is unnecesary, as the
 reporter well knows, since he was around when this was discussed on
 IRC (or perhaps he was unable to follow technical discussions). It is
 not clear whether the kernel headers are really fully correct, and
 have all the things in script/ dir compiled, unless a full build is
 done; hence building anyway is the safe route.

        So this is either malice, or sheer technical incompetence, I
 can't tell.

>   3. missing depends and recommends in the linux-image package.

        At last report, the build succeeded on i386, and was being
 retried on ppc, 

> These are probably due to a k-p regression, which means that both
> the config for the arch-indep build and the control file provided by
> the linux-2.6 build infrastructure are not used for the final
> packages, for some yet mysterious reason.

        Err, I believe it is not k-p regression, it is misusing k-p,
 or using it in undocumented ways, when not hacking around k-p and
 making assumptions about internal behaviour would work.  There is a
 problem, and something needs to be fixed -- but it is not clear that
 that is kernel-package.

> This is being worked on, and hopefully a fix will be out soon, but
> in the meantime, kernel-package 10.008 is useless for official
> linux-2.6 builds, and since it is in unstable, means we cannot
> upload anymore linux-2.6 packages until it is fixed, which makes
> this RC.

        To this point, the reporter has done nothing apart from troll,
 insult, and hinder efforts to diagnose the issue, and this BTS abuse
 is just another step in the process.

        manoj
-- 
It is no the shortcomings of others, nor what others have done or not
done that one should think about, but what one has done or not done
oneself. 50
Manoj Srivastava     <srivasta at acm.org>    <http://www.golden-gryphon.com/>
1024D/BF24424C print 4966 F272 D093 B493 410B  924B 21BA DABB BF24 424C

-- 
Configure bugmail: http://bugzilla.ubuntu.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact.