[pkg-go] Bug#801593: Bug#801593: Bug#801593: ratt does not find all reverse build dependencies

[Johannes Schauer]

Hi,

Quoting Michael Stapelberg (2015-10-18 23:10:06)
> I can’t figure out how to specify multiple binary packages when calling
> dose-ceve. The manpage for -r says:
> 
>        -r pkgspec
>            Using the same syntax as in -c, this option use the reverse
> dependency relation to make the transitive closure.
>            This option can also be specified as --rcone=pkgspec.
> 
> So the manpage for -c says:
> 
>        -c pkgspec
>            The match of an atomic dependency (a package name p possibly
> together with a version constraint c) is the set of all packages in the
> repository with name p, and a version that satisfies the constraint c.  The
> dependency cone of a package p is the set of all matches of all atomic
> dependencies of p, together with their respective dependency cones.  The
> package specification pkgspec is a list of packages (separated by a
> semicolon), where each package is specified as follows: (name,version).

Right, unfortunately it turns out that when we recently implemented the feature
that the -c and -r option would take a string in the Debian dependency format
when handling Debian packages, we forgot to document it :(

> Now I tried specifying multiple binary packages, but couldn’t get any
> combination to work:
> 
> https://paste.debian.net/316796/ (so as to not make this email too long)
> 
> So, I’m at a loss. What am I misunderstanding here? Can you please provide
> an example invocation of how you think ratt should call dose-ceve in this
> specific case?

The following will work:

dose-ceve --deb-native-arch=amd64 -T debsrc -r 'golang-golang-x-tools (= 1:0.0~git20150716.0.87156cb+dfsg1-4),golang-golang-x-tools-dev' -G pkg deb://Packages debsrc://Sources

You can see that the format of the -r option is the same as in a Depends field.

> Also, may I suggest the following improvements to dose-ceve:
> 
> 1. When -r is specified multiple times, it should not overwrite the package
> spec, but amend it. If you think -r should only be specified exactly once,
> I suggest dose-ceve should error out when users specify multiple -r values.
> 
> 2. The manpage ceve(1) should come with an example for pkgspec.
> 
> 3. Instead of merely stating that the provided pkgspec is invalid,
> dose-ceve should tell the user why the pkgspec is invalid, and ideally
> include a valid example.
> 
> (4. Possibly, the manpage ceve(1) should be worded a bit more clearly with
> regards to pkgspec, but perhaps it’s just me…)

No it's not just you and I agree with all your suggestions.

To not forget about your valuable input, I submitted a bug to the upstream
bugtracker:

https://gforge.inria.fr/tracker/index.php?func=detail&aid=19616&group_id=4395&atid=13808

Thanks!

cheers, josch
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 819 bytes
Desc: signature
URL: <http://lists.alioth.debian.org/pipermail/pkg-go-maintainers/attachments/20151019/c89b3b95/attachment.sig>