1. Forum
  2. Usenet
  3. LINUX.DEBIAN.DEVEL

  • Re: Search content (.h files) of all (-dev) packages?

    From Jeremy Stanley@21:1/5 to Alexander Traud on Thu Nov 11 16:50:02 2021
    On 2021-11-11 16:27:47 +0100 (+0100), Alexander Traud wrote:
    [...]
    Question: Exists an (easy) way to 'grep' all headers files of all
    packages in Debian?
    [...]

    That may be possible with https://codesearch.debian.net/ though
    you'll probably want to fiddle with the filetype and maybe package
    parameters as well as your search regex.
    --
    Jeremy Stanley

    -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----

    iQKTBAABCgB9FiEEl65Jb8At7J/DU7LnSPmWEUNJWCkFAmGNOqBfFIAAAAAALgAo aXNzdWVyLWZwckBub3RhdGlvbnMub3BlbnBncC5maWZ0aGhvcnNlbWFuLm5ldDk3 QUU0OTZGQzAyREVDOUZDMzUzQjJFNzQ4Rjk5NjExNDM0OTU4MjkACgkQSPmWEUNJ WCkThRAA0bc6au2o9r43D9eJLa5mujW2J7eAWNFrYEkW/IH017yzdi4GhLu/Y4c3 6PdDc5icvfF8zhU205QFxH5HbPduvI5EIWL9odbB5uCDOjCg/egC6ZfCUZCDy8UL OliqbuceJSAOLm7fmU9umXvRz8PHA13yFoSbuVmapKVfXdyabFc6p1QdkUhFb+iN o6gwxfBQfp8aOS+yvq00s2HaascqPoE+TJqlRkUjTmowfekT3Y1rBcX6PZsunib4 ATA+klJMKoFsPsR7xFdFZ4AV8CZ2SCFlEw8UKxyD99aRntg9nMBgnhJVcCFiD1oA ma2koHS0RuA0n7q9lQnt4jOk1Uxinv/G9DlsRyPvzTtT50rBxDeiLadefj4X3uP5 45TNDolbfFYbfJPnLVBxZFc3KFgmsxDWc3O1ZD1HTEzIMLBGFpLGdXzECZ0jMPH2 8OO3dFXZXtrJ2y94Y8eHg2++tw4Ck27dACtphdJdqdj8t31oPCw01mgkke1TAHqv qLiIut92KYNRzU1KSefCoP+CMING228k1CMGBtuVkky7bSRtl6FnNf1NL/0Q5Wv/ NT9z/6CoQhGRyNMFrHWpjwDrw3nCN+L8rlnrhJnsJ5PhzvAXedmukFxny031GBhi oghGq1qFV0Zx04E7VOmg046C+KyHYhVwFZF1Xy3VPTGnan+m5ak=
    =Dcbe
    -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

    --- SoupGate-Win32
  • From Alberto Luaces@21:1/5 to Alexander Traud on Thu Nov 11 16:50:02 2021
    Alexander Traud writes:

    Question: Exists an (easy) way to 'grep' all headers files of all packages in Debian?

    Does https://codesearch.debian.net help?

    --
    Alberto

    --=-=-Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc"

    -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----

    iKUEARMJAC0WIQQAkrD2fjOKzJT6ErrYoCh5SUbfSgUCYY058Q8cYWx1YWNlc0B1 ZGMuZXMACgkQ2KAoeUlG30pw3AGAr4xxFuVyKOVzr2kirzGU4XqPu7AlDqCMNlYQ hRfSssBQJxsgmouzKCJKXaZnCvDJAYDtGvOtrDn6ymZhx610pNQBdGHfnY7w1QLj bxYKMnOkZQGYxDi28JTgQBBhJz8Ll7E=5zxf
    -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Alexander Traud@21:1/5 to All on Thu Nov 11 16:30:01 2021
    Recently, I stumbled over a change in Doxygen [1][2][3] which broke the online documentation of a project, I had to use. The fix is easy. However, realizing the issue is not easy (no error, warning, just subtle glitches in the docs). Long story short, I
    grepped all -dev packages and their header files installed on my machine. That way, I found projects affected and reported/fixed it upstream.

    Question: Exists an (easy) way to 'grep' all headers files of all packages in Debian?

    [1] <https://gcc.gnu.org/git/?p=gcc.git;h=f0b8834>
    [2] <https://gcc.gnu.org/git/?p=gcc.git;h=014b6db>
    [3] <https://gcc.gnu.org/git/?p=gcc.git;h=72ddd86>

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Adam Borowski@21:1/5 to Alexander Traud on Thu Nov 11 19:20:02 2021
    On Thu, Nov 11, 2021 at 04:27:47PM +0100, Alexander Traud wrote:
    Question: Exists an (easy) way to 'grep' all headers files of all packages in Debian?

    Codesearch indexes 𝐬𝐨𝐮𝐫𝐜𝐞 packages, it sounds like you want binaries.

    wget http://ftp.debian.org/debian/dists/sid/main/Contents-amd64.gz
    apt download `zgrep '\.h ' Contents-amd64.gz |rev|cut -d/ -f1|rev|sort|uniq`

    ... which fetches all packages that provide a .h file.


    On the other hand Contents-source uses a tab and no section:

    wget http://ftp.debian.org/debian/dists/sid/main/Contents-source.gz
    apt source `zgrep '\.h\t' Contents-source.gz |cut -d$'\t' -f2|sort|uniq`


    Meow!
    --
    ⢀⣴⠾⠻⢶⣦⠀
    ⣾⠁⢠⠒⠀⣿⡁ “Exegi monumentum aere perennius” -- “I made a monument more
    ⢿⡄⠘⠷⠚⠋⠀ durable than bronze”.
    ⠈⠳⣄⠀⠀⠀⠀ -- Horace (65-8 BC), leaving the loo, constipated

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Paul Wise@21:1/5 to Adam Borowski on Fri Nov 12 02:30:01 2021
    On Thu, 2021-11-11 at 19:13 +0100, Adam Borowski wrote:

    wget http://ftp.debian.org/debian/dists/sid/main/Contents-amd64.gz
    apt download `zgrep '\.h ' Contents-amd64.gz |rev|cut -d/ -f1|rev|sort|uniq`

    An alternative to wget and zgrep is apt-file:

    apt download $(apt-file search -lx '\.h$')
    apt download $(apt-file search --package-only --regexp '\.h$')

    wget http://ftp.debian.org/debian/dists/sid/main/Contents-source.gz
    apt source `zgrep '\.h\t' Contents-source.gz |cut -d$'\t' -f2|sort|uniq`

    apt source $(apt-file search -lxI dsc '\.h$')
    apt source $(apt-file search --package-only --regexp --index-names dsc '\.h$')

    --
    bye,
    pabs

    https://wiki.debian.org/PaulWise

    -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----

    iQIzBAABCgAdFiEEYQsotVz8/kXqG1Y7MRa6Xp/6aaMFAmGNwbkACgkQMRa6Xp/6 aaPMaBAAmFO0ceCMhKAb2xnMv0cXdPlTpw1kaP7PR+JZlPqSbVBDSsgxotnxEAP7 hg4v+z+zP3wokoDCtyj/MOH5AnJi6N0zXHlr1s8LmQ1Y3eYa3lJ6ty17o2UKa1rl 1FbUwwfYBzfy3ESwbtCwn+qnUmODuPvaaX/MH6mY5KSGcRXmvtwKIIU59ladWJzk m86yuqf7kIcJ7FC5M5yQBCPER9fxzaFRInO5GE82tuxcCwkQcNO94ljQLoKVQUCt mZZXW/VxiCbj3Tz8DML0HasaDFLCxu7kEuH7htB9gRMHVBiAJqZBf/yYhWDvhAvk j8tD5jdqvIDOnOZrsgLEYBNWALeTj+Zdez1NbFrAEDPWGIYS98FFWIU7dn9sEqFR AlO/Fzt/rbrKLQjTNyh38R8EceW+2B7fp1Npocm6Y+1po3vj4o7PV1PC2mDDv6MU dUmkYMZYjamm1ysM+FEdOkD1s5tQUwCukhIRnt4kWmCj7rtAfKsZV2pds1Gt0fUB zueP+0cSO+GyP9Yusx7Sfeug4i6J0O+TfgNn3QG1sdBJa3uc5e303la98DZRbpXb YQYHT45U4R7z2t5IOd34GDWkjKwcMA5bp0OzsPn0SXT6lbk5SKtb2qwblDag4jNM xgwnFMF8W2iBEAqzddfVAr+GQ1C2v6PXvP+MkEhjRw4kmTozsWQ=
    =00Cf
    -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Alexander Traud@21:1/5 to All on Fri Nov 12 12:00:03 2021
    Thank you so much. Both helped. For another project, I am going for the -dev package content. For this issue here, the source turned out to be much easier.

    The result is a bit astonishing. I have not checked for false positives yet. But the initial search gave 650 affected source packages. I expected perhaps 15 packages, which I fix then. However, that is 2.5% of the actual amount, 40 times more than
    envisioned. Any idea how to tackle that?

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Stefano Rivera@21:1/5 to All on Mon Nov 15 00:20:02 2021
    Hi Alexander (2021.11.12_10:58:19_+0000)
    The result is a bit astonishing. I have not checked for false positives yet. But the initial search gave 650 affected source packages. I expected perhaps 15 packages, which I fix then. However, that is 2.5% of the actual amount, 40 times more than
    envisioned. Any idea how to tackle that?

    Usually: Mass rebuild them all, against the new doxygen, and then do a mass-bug-filing against the ones that FTBFS, describing the issue and
    how to fix it.

    I usually spin up a cloud instance for something like this, if it's a
    lot of packages.

    You can also ask Lucas for help doing mass builds, I think?

    https://wiki.debian.org/MassRebuilds

    SR

    --
    Stefano Rivera
    http://tumbleweed.org.za/
    +1 415 683 3272

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Paolo Greppi@21:1/5 to All on Mon Nov 15 08:40:02 2021
    I Alexander,

    Il 12/11/21 11:58, Alexander Traud ha scritto:
    Thank you so much. Both helped. For another project, I am going for the -dev package content. For this issue here, the source turned out to be much easier.

    The result is a bit astonishing. I have not checked for false positives yet. But the initial search gave 650 affected source packages. I expected perhaps 15 packages, which I fix then. However, that is 2.5% of the actual amount, 40 times more than
    envisioned. Any idea how to tackle that?



    cheers from the doxygen maintainer !

    Sorry I missed this thread, the title did not jump at me.

    Can you please check if this upstream patch fixes the issue you are having ? https://github.com/doxygen/doxygen/issues/8815

    Thanks,

    Paolo

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Alexander Traud@21:1/5 to All on Mon Nov 29 15:10:01 2021
    upstream .. issue

    Paolo, thanks for watching. Doxygen works as expected.

    In the past, it accepted group commands without being in a "special comment section". Since version 1.8.16, Doxygen requires a "special
    comment section". Again, as designed, Doxygen does not see those group commands now. Consequently, Doxygen does not emit any warning. And the resulting documentation might† be broken. Actually, I noticed this
    initially with libopusfile which had empty documentation in chapter 4
    because of that [1].

    Consequently, Doxygen has no issue. However, looking at the amount of
    projects affected, a feature request for Doxygen could be to emit a
    warning if such an "old" style group command is found. Not sure.

    † That is the problem: It might be obvious. It might be not so obvious change in the resulting documentation. Even in libopusfile, where it was obvious and reported by two other users over a year span, it took me
    some time to find the cause.

    [1] <https://gitlab.xiph.org/xiph/opusfile/-/merge_requests/34>

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)