Merge lp:~roadmr/checkbox/plainbox-packaging-dbus-dependencies into lp:~checkbox-dev/checkbox/plainbox-packaging

Proposed by Daniel Manrique
Status: Merged
Approved by: Zygmunt Krynicki
Approved revision: 13
Merged at revision: 13
Proposed branch: lp:~roadmr/checkbox/plainbox-packaging-dbus-dependencies
Merge into: lp:~checkbox-dev/checkbox/plainbox-packaging
Diff against target: 12 lines (+2/-0)
1 file modified
debian/control (+2/-0)
To merge this branch: bzr merge lp:~roadmr/checkbox/plainbox-packaging-dbus-dependencies
Reviewer Review Type Date Requested Status
Zygmunt Krynicki (community) Approve
Daniel Manrique (community) Needs Resubmitting
Review via email: mp+174519@code.launchpad.net

Commit message

Recent plainbox builds are failing, ostensibly because during testing, plainbox/impl/service.py wants to include dbus, which is not declared as a dependency and thus not installed.

While it's strictly a Build-Depends, I also added it as a Depends since this will eventually be one of the main ways to use plainbox.

Let me know if it would be preferrable to remove the runtime dependency on dbus (not the build one), and instead add that dependency in i.e. GUI clients that communicate through dbus.

Description of the change

Recent plainbox builds are failing, ostensibly because during testing, plainbox/impl/service.py wants to include dbus, which is not declared as a dependency and thus not installed.

While it's strictly speaking only needed as a Build-Depends, I also added it as a Depends since this will eventually be one of the main ways to use plainbox.

Let me know if it would be preferrable to remove the runtime dependency on dbus (not the build one), and instead add that dependency in i.e. GUI clients that communicate through dbus.

To post a comment you must log in.
Revision history for this message
Zygmunt Krynicki (zyga) wrote :

Thanks for looking at the packaging. I think I'd like to have plainbox-service as a standalone package, that ships the .service file and perhaps a small dedicated executable just for that. I'd rather not pull python3-dbus and the rest of dbus just for python3-plainbox.

Thanks

Revision history for this message
Daniel Manrique (roadmr) wrote :

That makes sense, I'll amend this to add only the build-depends.

I'm still having trouble with the build, the test_run and test_sru tests fail due to trouble creating a log file (try it in a local pbuilder or sbuild if you're curious). I'll work on fixing all in one go, no point in submitting a fix that half-works :)

Revision history for this message
Sylvain Pineau (sylvain-pineau) wrote :

+1 for having a dedicated service package, cli based clients won't need dbus (they could of course but python3-plainbox doesn’t need to have a runtime dep on dbus).

13. By Daniel Manrique

Added python3-dbus and python3-gi as Build-Depends so build-time tests pass

Revision history for this message
Daniel Manrique (roadmr) wrote :

Hey! so I resubmitted with a change to have dbus and gi as Build-Depends only.

Note that it will still not build due with another problem in the logging module which I'm still investigating (I know why it happens, I just need to code a solution). But if you want to approve this so it's ready when the fix for the logging problem lands, it should be OK. Thanks!

review: Needs Resubmitting
Revision history for this message
Zygmunt Krynicki (zyga) wrote :

Yup, looks good. +1

Would you mind looking at packaging the service file?

review: Approve

Preview Diff

[H/L] Next/Prev Comment, [J/K] Next/Prev File, [N/P] Next/Prev Hunk
1=== modified file 'debian/control'
2--- debian/control 2013-05-10 12:42:12 +0000
3+++ debian/control 2013-07-15 13:18:24 +0000
4@@ -5,6 +5,8 @@
5 Build-Depends: checkbox,
6 debhelper (>= 8.0.0),
7 python3-all,
8+ python3-dbus,
9+ python3-gi,
10 python3-lxml,
11 python3-mock,
12 python3-pkg-resources,

Subscribers

People subscribed via source and target branches