Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

reads wrong config file while checking BUILD_DEPENDS availability #499

Open
anbe42 opened this issue Mar 4, 2025 · 2 comments
Open

reads wrong config file while checking BUILD_DEPENDS availability #499

anbe42 opened this issue Mar 4, 2025 · 2 comments
Assignees
Labels

Comments

@anbe42
Copy link
Collaborator

anbe42 commented Mar 4, 2025

While investigating a spurious autopkgtest failure in Debian (of the only(?) dkms package in Debian using BUILD_DEPENDS), I noticed that dkms claims the build dependency is not available after it has been successfully built and installed immediately before this check.

So far I haven't been able to reproduce that in run_tests.sh

It could be a recently introduced regression, since I think the test succeeded in the past. But it could also be a very fragile path that leads to an error here. If there is a second kernel, the failure seems to be only on the first.

What I noticed so far is:

  • is_module_built gets 4 arguments and while checking availability of a build-dependency, $1/$2 refer to the B-D being checked and differ from $module/$module_version. But when is_module_built calls read_conf_or_die, this happens with the implicit $module/$module_version parameters and a $conf override inherited from somewhere. As a result, some wrong module gets checked for being built returning a failure.
  • If I prefix that command with module=$1 module_version=$2 and the correct dkms.conf (from the build-dependency) gets loaded, this modifies the internal state (BUILT_MODULE_NAME MAKE etc.) and the whole thing explodes during build.
@anbe42 anbe42 added the bug label Mar 4, 2025
@anbe42 anbe42 self-assigned this Mar 4, 2025
@scaronni
Copy link
Collaborator

@anbe42 do you want to tackle this in the short term or can I proceed with tagging and releasing 3.1.6?

@scaronni
Copy link
Collaborator

Nevermind, I'll just tag the release, let's address it after. thanks.

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
Projects
None yet
Development

No branches or pull requests

2 participants