[arch-dev-public] Punishment needed for not building in a chroot

Eric Bélanger snowmaniscool at gmail.com
Sun Dec 6 18:08:19 EST 2009

On Sun, Dec 6, 2009 at 5:53 PM, Allan McRae <allan at archlinux.org> wrote:
> Hi,
> We have been through this many times...  you should always build in a clean
> chroot.  But there are continuously bugs about packages linking to non-deps.
>  We should never have such bugs.
> e.g. (FS#17409)
>> readelf -d /usr/bin/mpd
> ...
> 0x00000001 (NEEDED)                     Shared library: [libjack.so.0]
> ...
>> pactree -u mpd | sort
> ...
> gmp
> imlib2
> kbproto
> kernel-headers
> ...
> How did that get to linking to jack without jack being in its dependency
> tree?  Poor packaging...
> The tools are very simple to use and are described in the wiki
> (http://wiki.archlinux.org/index.php/DeveloperWiki:Building_in_a_Clean_Chroot).
>  There is _no_ excuse not to use them.  The are minor changes needed for
> doing i686 builds on x86_64 and vise versa, but there are plenty of us doing
> that so help is available.  Ask for help if needed.

Agree. What's more frustrating is that these "missing" dependency are
detected by namcap:

$ namcap /var/cache/pacman/pkg/mpd-0.15.6-1-i686.pkg.tar.gz
mpd E: Dependency detected and not included
(jack-audio-connection-kit) from files ['usr/bin/mpd']

so not only a clean chroot is not being used, but namcap is also not
used as well.

> So, we need a creative punishment for those that causes bugs by not building
> in a clean chroot.  It is too early in the morning for me to be creative so
> I am struggling to come up with ideas besides beatings and removal of commit
> privileges.  Any better ideas?
> Allan

More information about the arch-dev-public mailing list