if you are referring to the 88-nuand-*.rules then I think that at this
time TAG+="uaccess"` is needed because those rules are executed after
the rule 70-uaccess.rules so you would also need to change the
filename of the rule
you should be able to create an account on salsa, then fork the
repository and finally create a merge request from the new commits in
your fork.
I would drop the 88-* rules and add the 60-* rules with the changes
that you suggested and add a note to README.Debian
in any case do open a merge
request as soon as you can, so other people can give feedback on a
specific change; otherwise if the discussion remains only in this
mailing list we risk forgetting this issue.
but in any case do open a merge
request as soon as you can, so other people can give feedback on a
specific change; otherwise if the discussion remains only in this
mailing list we risk forgetting this issue.
On 26 Jul 2024, at 23:15, Martin Herren - HB9FXX <hb9fxx@protonmail.com> wrote:
Hej,
I'm still stuck on this issue.
On Saturday, July 6th, 2024 at 12:39 PM, Daniele Forsi <iu5hkx@gmail.com> wrote:
but in any case do open a merge
request as soon as you can, so other people can give feedback on a
specific change; otherwise if the discussion remains only in this
mailing list we risk forgetting this issue.
I just opened an MR at https://salsa.debian.org/debian-hamradio-team/bladerf/-/merge_requests/1
I'm still stuck building the .deb. Seems to be a problem with building the firmware.
Hoped this would be an easy and simple first contribution to a package. Underestimated the issue and overestimated my ability.
Still motivated to learn how to do it so maybe next time it will be easier.
73s de Martin HB9FXX
</div><div>As a quick set of pointers, I did the following:</div><div><br></div><div>Entered my `~/Dev/Debian/` dir where all work happens made a new bladerf folder and entered it. I then r<span style="caret-color: rgb(0, 0, 0); color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">an `apt source bladerf`</span><span style="caret-color: rgb(0, 0, 0); color: rgb(0, 0, 0);"> so the upstream tarball was present.</span></div><div>From there, I git cloned your repo to `bladerf`, entered and checked out udev_rules_update</div><div>``
``` </div><div>This generated a valid deb. It also ran Lintian which complained as usual but nothing that stands out as a blocker for build.</div><div><br></div><div>I always have sbuild[1] set up and an unstable chroot for building ready to go.Sbuild will always fail if you don’t have the orig.tar.gz matching the level - I notice this one relies on two original tarballs:</div><div><div>```</div><div>dpkg-source: info: unpacking bladerf_0.2023.02.orig.tar.gz</div><div>dpkg-source: info:
</div></body></html>
I always have sbuild[1] set up and an unstable chroot for building ready to go. Sbuild will always fail if you don’t have the orig.tar.gz matching the level - I notice this one relies on two original tarballs:
```
dpkg-source: info: unpacking bladerf_0.2023.02.orig.tar.gz
dpkg-source: info: unpacking bladerf_0.2023.02.orig-drivers.tar.xz
```
Maybe that’s part of your firmware issue?
I strongly recommend playing with sbuild, it’s a fantastic tool. I’ve been using it to do cross builds for different architectures and all kinds of funky stuff this year. Recently I learned you can feed it the url to a .dsc and it will downloadeverything from the remote server required to build that package! `sbuild http://deb.debian.org/debian/pool/main/q/qsstv/qsstv_9.5.8-3.dsc` (for example) now happens quite a lot in my house!
One thing I notice after a quick look at the commits is that your patch format looks odd to me - how did you generate updates to d/patches/update-bladerf-udev-rules? Did you edit the patch file directly?still builds, so presumably it’s just a style difference! I tend to ship upstream’s code in my repos, not just the Debian folder so there may be a packing style difference between mait and I there too.
I notice lines like diff --git a/host/misc/udev/60-nuand-bladerf1.rules.in b/host/misc/udev/60-nuand-bladerf1.rules.in are a bit unusual to my eyes (someone else, of course, may correct me - there’s many ways to interact with Debian!). It clearly
I use quilt[2] for patching generally. It’s worth installing quilt and setting up a .quiltrc as the wiki page suggests.adjacent to the folder.
You’ll be looking to push the relevant patch on to the stack with `quilt push update-bladerf-udev-rules` make changes directly to the code, run `quilt refresh` and then `quilt pop -a` to pull the patches off the stack, but it assumes the code is
Hopefully this helps - you’re welcome to reach out and ask for help any time!
CheersHibby
[1] https://wiki.debian.org/sbuild-----------------------12b5f793218ae3dd70a11afc64f63f5e
[2] https://wiki.debian.org/UsingQuilt--
Hibby
Debian Developer
Packet Radioist
MM0RFN
Hi,
Thanks Dave, what a huge amount of help and pointers you just provided.
Previously i tried to build the .deb using `debuild`. While it succeeded to produce a .dsc it failed generating a .deb with the same error as in the salsa ci/cd pipeline as in https://salsa.debian.org/MartinHerren/bladerf/-/jobs/6029130.
I had both original tarballs available. With some manual hacking i managed to get a little further without succeeding.
I then followed your procedure and managed to set up an initial unstable sbuild environment and it managed to build a .deb !
Now i'll validate the 2 issues i'm trying to solve with my MR by installing the new .deb.
Yes, the patch has been somewhat manually generated by modifying the .orig folder and generating a diff out of it that i used to update the patch. Next will be to look at quilt and i'll update my MR.
Thanks a lot, this helps a lot to go forward with this MR !
Cheers,
Martin
On Saturday, July 27th, 2024 at 1:14 AM, Dave Hibberd <hibby@debian.org> wrote:
I always have sbuild[1] set up and an unstable chroot for building ready to go. Sbuild will always fail if you don’t have the orig.tar.gz matching the level - I notice this one relies on two original tarballs:
```
dpkg-source: info: unpacking bladerf_0.2023.02.orig.tar.gz
dpkg-source: info: unpacking bladerf_0.2023.02.orig-drivers.tar.xz
```
Maybe that’s part of your firmware issue?
everything from the remote server required to build that package! `sbuild http://deb.debian.org/debian/pool/main/q/qsstv/qsstv_9.5.8-3.dsc` (for example) now happens quite a lot in my house!I strongly recommend playing with sbuild, it’s a fantastic tool. I’ve been using it to do cross builds for different architectures and all kinds of funky stuff this year. Recently I learned you can feed it the url to a .dsc and it will download
still builds, so presumably it’s just a style difference! I tend to ship upstream’s code in my repos, not just the Debian folder so there may be a packing style difference between mait and I there too.One thing I notice after a quick look at the commits is that your patch format looks odd to me - how did you generate updates to d/patches/update-bladerf-udev-rules? Did you edit the patch file directly?
I notice lines like diff --git a/host/misc/udev/60-nuand-bladerf1.rules.in b/host/misc/udev/60-nuand-bladerf1.rules.in are a bit unusual to my eyes (someone else, of course, may correct me - there’s many ways to interact with Debian!). It clearly
adjacent to the folder.I use quilt[2] for patching generally. It’s worth installing quilt and setting up a .quiltrc as the wiki page suggests.
You’ll be looking to push the relevant patch on to the stack with `quilt push update-bladerf-udev-rules` make changes directly to the code, run `quilt refresh` and then `quilt pop -a` to pull the patches off the stack, but it assumes the code is
Hopefully this helps - you’re welcome to reach out and ask for help any time!
CheersHibby
-----------------------a1eb703dc4e33d4024f38202a7faebd5[1] https://wiki.debian.org/sbuild [2] https://wiki.debian.org/UsingQuilt--
Hibby
Debian Developer
Packet Radioist
MM0RFN
Hi Dave,Debian !
Thanks for your answer.
Things have changed a little now. A new .deb package has been released with the new upstream release and thus my MR is now in conflict.
As suggested by Mait it is probably better to try to open my MR against upstream directly.
If that doesn't work there is still time to adapt my MR again.
So i'll open an new MR directly to upstream as this makes sense and the issue can also affect other distributions.
I'd like to thanks all of you that helped and guided my over the last 2 months, i learned a lot, including about sbuild and quilt and the packaging process in general. So the time was not waisted and i hope to find other opportunities to contribute to
Cheers,
Martin - HB9FXX
On Tuesday, August 27th, 2024 at 12:51 PM, Dave Hibberd <d@vehibberd.com> wrote:
Hi Martin!
Thing
Sysop: | Keyop |
---|---|
Location: | Huddersfield, West Yorkshire, UK |
Users: | 491 |
Nodes: | 16 (3 / 13) |
Uptime: | 129:46:55 |
Calls: | 9,689 |
Calls today: | 5 |
Files: | 13,728 |
Messages: | 6,177,430 |