[pkg-bacula-devel] Request to sponsor 5.2.6+dfsg-2 to backports

[Luca Capello]

Hi there!

Slowly catching up with Bacula work, sorry for the delay.

On Tue, 21 Aug 2012 11:01:38 +0200, Bart Swedrowski wrote:
> On 21 August 2012 09:12, Alexander Golovko <alexandro at ankalagon.ru> wrote:
>> 3. Bart packages differ from my only in build-specific files and
>> in /usr/share/doc/bacula-common/examples/nagios/check_bacula/Makefile.gz
>>
>> Last file differ, because Bart has ccache installed on build system.

FWIW, I use ccache as well, see:

  <http://people.debian.org/~gismo/debian/pbuilderrc>

>> debdiff show differences in "Installed size" fields, but after
>> unpacking my and Bart packages their have identical sizes ("du -scx").

Thank you for the extra check, but if debdiff complains there is
something wrong ;-)

>> 4. But Luca packages has more differences from my.
>>
>> It differ from my in all or near all ELF-files.
>>
>> Differences look like they only in headers, not in generated code
>> (it is stracge, but i use "diff -a" for see this).

This is strange, are these differences from debdiff?

>> Maybe this is because of Luca build system didn't upgraded to last
>> squeeze?

I was sure to have checked various times with multiple upgrades in my
squeeze chroot, so I fail to see why there should be so many differences
against your packages.

BTW, I use a *squeeze* chroot, not a *squeeze-backports* one, for the
simple reason that the Build-Depends: should be as much as possible the
ones from the former, so the end-user does not need to activate
squeeze-backports for no need.

> Following on this, after chatting further to Alexandro we noticed that
> I'm using ext4 filesystem where Alexandro is using ext3.  I've spinned
> up a VM with ext3 filesystem and used it to build packages.  All
> Installed-Size differencies went away and debdiff is now reporting now
> differencies to Alexandro's packages.
[...]
> If I compare those packages against my other packages build on system
> with ext4 FS I still see the diffs:

And what about my packages?  I do not use any ext3/ext4, but tmpfs.

> I'm inclined to say those diffs are safe to be ignored, however I
> could possibly follow this up with mentors mailing list to get some
> input from them.

I would say that digging out the real cause would be useful, for
other/future people as well.  This is probably material for
debian-devel@, but going on debian-mentors@ should be fine as well.

> For now, I guess its safe to push the backport, so
> if you could do the honours Luca ;-)

Sure, with no news from you before tomorrow evening I will update your
packages at:

  <http://sultan.timedout.org/~bart/debian/barts-squeeze-backports/bacula_5.2.6%2bdfsg-2~bpo60%2b1_amd64.changes>

Thx, bye,
Gismo / Luca
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 835 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.alioth.debian.org/pipermail/pkg-bacula-devel/attachments/20120909/4e79c4d0/attachment.pgp>