Recent

Author Topic: A (Debian) Quality Proposal  (Read 10976 times)

MarkMLl

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4214
Re: A (Debian) quality proposal
« Reply #15 on: January 21, 2022, 09:38:41 am »
If the Lintian hints aren’t part of a bug report (i. e. something does not work), they don’t get fixed.

In which case it would be reasonable for Debian to eventually exclude FPC as non-compliant with their standards and leave it to derivatives to bundle it if they wanted.

Which in practice might not be a bad thing, since the version in Debian-stable is invariably a couple of stitches behind the "bleeding edge" that the community is happy supporting.

MarkMLl
MT+86 & Turbo Pascal v1 on CCP/M-86, multitasking with LAN & graphics in 128Kb.
Pet hate: people who boast about the size and sophistication of their computer.
GitHub repositories: https://github.com/MarkMLl?tab=repositories

dbannon

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2032
    • tomboy-ng, a rewrite of the classic Tomboy
Re: A (Debian) Quality Proposal
« Reply #16 on: January 21, 2022, 10:47:43 am »
I dare to differ.

If we don't have a fpc in Debian (and elsewhere) then we won't have applications that need FPC to build. And if people looking for a build environment see its not welcome in the distros they will decide its not a good choice.

Davo
Lazarus 2, Linux (and reluctantly Win10, OSX)
My Project - https://github.com/tomboy-notes/tomboy-ng

Thaddy

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 11550
Re: A (Debian) Quality Proposal
« Reply #17 on: January 21, 2022, 10:49:54 am »
Note for Debian there is always backports.
Note that the packagers are free to report bugs against FPC on the freepascal bugtracker if they see any. In fact I expect them to do so.
Note that the Debian eco-system contains a great many packages that would be removed because they do not fully adhere to the Debian standards.... A great many...including some that are considered essentals.
« Last Edit: January 21, 2022, 10:56:13 am by Thaddy »
Путин преступник. Россияне дезинформированы.

dbannon

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2032
    • tomboy-ng, a rewrite of the classic Tomboy
Re: A (Debian) Quality Proposal
« Reply #18 on: January 21, 2022, 11:09:09 am »
Note for Debian there is always backports.
Yes, and the relevance is ?

Quote
Note that the packagers are free to report bugs against FPC on the freepascal bugtracker if they see any.
Indeed, and thats why I asked the iniial question, is there any point ?

Quote
Note that the Debian eco-system contains a great many packages that would be removed because they do not fully adhere to the Debian standards.... A great many...including some that are considered essentals.
Are you arguing that someone else did something wrong, therefor I should be allowed to too ? Its a widely used argument but one I would have thought beneath you Thaddy.

Again, I say it, this is not a Debian specific issue, Debian is just the messenger, please listen to the message !

Davo
Lazarus 2, Linux (and reluctantly Win10, OSX)
My Project - https://github.com/tomboy-notes/tomboy-ng

af0815

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 937
Re: A (Debian) Quality Proposal
« Reply #19 on: January 21, 2022, 11:27:51 am »
Quote
A file is not valid UTF-8.
Debian has used UTF-8 for many years. Support for national encodings is being phased out. This file probably appears to users in mangled characters (also called mojibake).  Packaging control files must be encoded in valid UTF-8.
Sorry for my question, but i see here the sentence 'Packaging control files must be encoded in valid UTF-8' this is for me understandable, that this type of files must be UTF-8, but are internal files in the packages ( eg. the sources of FPC/Lazarus) also infected of this rule.
regards
Andreas

MarkMLl

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4214
Re: A (Debian) Quality Proposal
« Reply #20 on: January 21, 2022, 11:49:36 am »
If we don't have a fpc in Debian (and elsewhere) then we won't have applications that need FPC to build. And if people looking for a build environment see its not welcome in the distros they will decide its not a good choice.

But Debian's significance is far more as a "meta-distro" upon which things like Ubuntu and Raspbian are based than something intended for direct consumption.

Focusing on interaction with the derivative distreaux might actually be better from FPC/Lazarus's POV, since it would cut out the plodding politicisation and philosophising which characterise Debian.

MarkMLl
MT+86 & Turbo Pascal v1 on CCP/M-86, multitasking with LAN & graphics in 128Kb.
Pet hate: people who boast about the size and sophistication of their computer.
GitHub repositories: https://github.com/MarkMLl?tab=repositories

dbannon

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2032
    • tomboy-ng, a rewrite of the classic Tomboy
Re: A (Debian) Quality Proposal
« Reply #21 on: January 21, 2022, 11:57:50 am »
Hmm, who do you think packages FPC for Ubuntu and Raspbian ?

Ubuntu do create some packages of their own but the vast majority come from Debian, indeed, Debians charts on where a package exists have a column for Ubuntu.

Raspbian is pure Debian, take a Debian source package and recompile.

But, I say it again, I am not suggesting we need to fix these things because of Debian, we need to fix them because they are faults. When someone gets an error message from FPC containing a spelling mistake, they snigger just a bit. When they look at the source file and see unknown characters, they raise their eyebrows just a bit. It all adds up ....

Davo
Lazarus 2, Linux (and reluctantly Win10, OSX)
My Project - https://github.com/tomboy-notes/tomboy-ng

marcov

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *
  • Posts: 10000
  • FPC developer.
Re: A (Debian) Quality Proposal
« Reply #22 on: January 21, 2022, 12:01:00 pm »
I've committed a fix to trunk for the first three errors in the demoes (flist* and cgibmp)

These:
Quote
W hardening-no-pie [usr/bin/chmcmd-3.2.2]

W hardening-no-pie [usr/bin/fpdoc-3.2.2]

W hardening-no-pie [usr/bin/fppkg-3.2.2]

W hardening-no-pie [usr/bin/rstconv-3.2.2]

I hardening-no-fortify-functions [usr/bin/chmcmd-3.2.2]

I hardening-no-fortify-functions [usr/bin/fpdoc-3.2.2]

I hardening-no-fortify-functions [usr/bin/rstconv-3.2.2]

probably need to be added to the ignore list. They are all based on the assumption you use GCC.
« Last Edit: January 21, 2022, 12:36:33 pm by marcov »

MarkMLl

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4214
Re: A (Debian) Quality Proposal
« Reply #23 on: January 21, 2022, 12:04:16 pm »
Hmm, who do you think packages FPC for Ubuntu and Raspbian ?

Debian, with a systemic delay of months or years.

Quote
Raspbian is pure Debian, take a Debian source package and recompile.

Mostly. I ran Debian on RPis for an extended period before switching to Raspbian (or whatever it's called these days) and there /are/ differences.

Quote
But, I say it again, I am not suggesting we need to fix these things because of Debian, we need to fix them because they are faults. When someone gets an error message from FPC containing a spelling mistake, they snigger just a bit. When they look at the source file and see unknown characters, they raise their eyebrows just a bit. It all adds up ....

I agree. Or for that matter when somebody's "AI" mines Debian quality reports and includes things that are basically cosmetic in their reliability rating.

However, I did think that the alternative was worth highlighting.

MarkMLl
MT+86 & Turbo Pascal v1 on CCP/M-86, multitasking with LAN & graphics in 128Kb.
Pet hate: people who boast about the size and sophistication of their computer.
GitHub repositories: https://github.com/MarkMLl?tab=repositories

marcov

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *
  • Posts: 10000
  • FPC developer.
Re: A (Debian) Quality Proposal
« Reply #24 on: January 21, 2022, 12:08:41 pm »
Hmm, who do you think packages FPC for Ubuntu and Raspbian ?

Peter Green aka plugwash, one of the Raspbian starters, was a decade long FPC user and contributor. One of the reasons that at least in the early days Raspbian had a much more up to date FPC than Debian :-)

Quote
W source-contains-prebuilt-windows-binary [fpcsrc/packages/libndsfpc/examples/graphics/3D/Paletted_Cube/data/texture1_RGB16_pal.bin]

Probably a false positive in the "file" command. The file is very short, and the COM format is very minimal, so that detection is not 100%. Another case for lintian ignores.
« Last Edit: January 21, 2022, 12:11:44 pm by marcov »

Fred vS

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2552
    • StrumPract is the musicians best friend
Re: A (Debian) Quality Proposal
« Reply #25 on: January 21, 2022, 12:10:52 pm »
Hmm, who do you think packages FPC for Ubuntu and Raspbian ?

Ubuntu do create some packages of their own but the vast majority come from Debian, indeed, Debians charts on where a package exists have a column for Ubuntu.

Raspbian is pure Debian, take a Debian source package and recompile.

But, I say it again, I am not suggesting we need to fix these things because of Debian, we need to fix them because they are faults. When someone gets an error message from FPC containing a spelling mistake, they snigger just a bit. When they look at the source file and see unknown characters, they raise their eyebrows just a bit. It all adds up ....

Davo

Hello Davo.

Many thanks for your post and I dont understand why some people spit on the messenger.

The Debian report is highly precious and fpc team should be grateful for it rather than trying to find fleas.

Sure that many things could be fixed and it should be a priority, humility is not weakness .

And sorry, but a fpc Debian package is a must for the existence of fpc.

Voila, c'est dit, I let you in peace.

Fre;D

PS: I would be very happy if I could find somebody or something that will check my programs like Debian does for the canditate packages.
I use Lazarus 2.2.0 32/64 and FPC 3.2.2 32/64 on Debian 11 64 bit, Windows 10, Windows 7 32/64, Windows XP 32,  FreeBSD 64.
Widgetset: fpGUI, MSEgui, Win32, GTK2, Qt.

https://github.com/fredvs
https://gitlab.com/fredvs

marcov

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *
  • Posts: 10000
  • FPC developer.
Re: A (Debian) Quality Proposal
« Reply #26 on: January 21, 2022, 12:33:45 pm »
I also fixed the superfluous file commands that relate to the compiler and IDE dir. The only remaining is

Quote
W superfluous-file-pattern fpcsrc/compiler/compinnr.inc [debian/copyright:125]

Since I didn't know what that file was about.

Note that the IDE dir change is first quarter 2015 or so. Sad to see that the debian port files are not updated for that.

All very long line warnings: why does Debian detect lines in binary files? Is this due we don't somehow set an binary attribute on them, or is this impossible, and should we simply add them all to the ignores?

Similarly,

Quote
I spelling-error-in-binary ACount Account [usr/lib/x86_64-linux-gnu/fpc/3.2.2/units/x86_64-linux/fpindexer/fpindexer.o]

is a slightly different case of the same. It probably finds a parameter "A Count" as per Delphi parameter style guide, and thinks this is a text and should be account.

It shouldn't be scanning binary files for spelling, but how to remedy this?
« Last Edit: January 21, 2022, 12:53:47 pm by marcov »

marcov

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *
  • Posts: 10000
  • FPC developer.
Re: A (Debian) Quality Proposal
« Reply #27 on: January 21, 2022, 12:55:32 pm »
I also looked at the declartory and orignal cases, and most seem to have already been fixed in trunk. I fixed one more orignal case (which was atypical and might have been missed by some script).

The one remaining declartory is in an MPL license text from an external package. I'm not sure if we are legally allowed to fix that (and thus mutate the license)

dbannon

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2032
    • tomboy-ng, a rewrite of the classic Tomboy
Re: A (Debian) Quality Proposal
« Reply #28 on: January 21, 2022, 02:20:20 pm »
Marcov, you are a gentleman and a scholar !  I thank you for the positive action.

I also looked at the declartory and orignal cases, and most seem to have already been fixed in trunk.
Yeah, some were fixed a few months ago because they showed up in my binary.

Quote
The one remaining declartory is in an MPL license text from an external package. I'm not sure if we are legally allowed to fix that (and thus mutate the license)
Oh, thats an interesting one.

Quote
    W superfluous-file-pattern fpcsrc/compiler/compinnr.inc [debian/copyright:125]
Since I didn't know what that file was about.
I suspect that is in the Debian license file they create during packaging. Its been fixed at their end anyway.

From whats been going on here, I have to assume the National Code Page v UTF8 issue is a "will not fix" but I suppose its reasonable for us to say that the ISO files are pretty stable, unlikely to be edited or have more added ?

Quote
Note that the IDE dir change is first quarter 2015 or so....
I believe that they are working with FPC3.2.2 so that would seem strange indeed.

Quote
All very long line warnings: why does Debian detect lines in binary files?
I have no idea. That's a new list that only appeared a few days ago, after this thread started. IHMO it makes no sense.

Quote
I spelling-error-in-binary ACount Account..... It shouldn't be scanning binary files for spelling,
Yes, I had a smile about that one too. Fact is they do scan binary files and most of the hits they get are valid. But its not fool proof   ;D

Quote
Peter Green aka plugwash,.... Raspbian
I stand corrected.

I think I know the limits now of what its worthwhile worrying the FPC devs about. If more fixable ones are found, how would you prefer them reported ?  Just a bug report or a pull request ?

Thanks again !

Davo







 
Lazarus 2, Linux (and reluctantly Win10, OSX)
My Project - https://github.com/tomboy-notes/tomboy-ng

PascalDragon

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4029
  • Compiler Developer
Re: A (Debian) Quality Proposal
« Reply #29 on: January 21, 2022, 03:42:46 pm »
I've committed a fix to trunk for the first three errors in the demoes (flist* and cgibmp)

These:
Quote
W hardening-no-pie [usr/bin/chmcmd-3.2.2]

W hardening-no-pie [usr/bin/fpdoc-3.2.2]

W hardening-no-pie [usr/bin/fppkg-3.2.2]

W hardening-no-pie [usr/bin/rstconv-3.2.2]

I hardening-no-fortify-functions [usr/bin/chmcmd-3.2.2]

I hardening-no-fortify-functions [usr/bin/fpdoc-3.2.2]

I hardening-no-fortify-functions [usr/bin/rstconv-3.2.2]

probably need to be added to the ignore list. They are all based on the assumption you use GCC.

This has been a topic on the bug tracker as the same also results in problems on PPC64le. So these shouldn't be ignored, but will instead be fixed by themselves some time in the future once FPC generates correct static PIE binaries.

 

TinyPortal © 2005-2018