install-build-deps: Install libudev1 for Ubuntu 13.04

install-build-deps: Install libudev1 for Ubuntu 13.04

Install libudev1 Ubuntu 13.04, keep libudev0 for other Ubuntu releases.
Add 13.04 (racing) codename

BUG=240963
TEST=Tested manually

Committed: https://src.chromium.org/viewvc/chrome?view=rev&revision=201259

[haltonhuo, 2013-05-17 01:03:01]

hi, anybody could review it?

[Paweł Hajdan Jr., 2013-05-17 01:17:50]

Thanks a lot for the patch. One small thing.

https://codereview.chromium.org/14718016/diff/1/build/install-build-deps.sh
File build/install-build-deps.sh (right):

https://codereview.chromium.org/14718016/diff/1/build/install-build-deps.sh#n...
build/install-build-deps.sh:131: # Some package names have changed over time
Please add your logic here, to fit better with existing patterns.

[haltonhuo, 2013-05-17 02:00:17]

> build/install-build-deps.sh:131: # Some package names have changed over time
> Please add your logic here, to fit better with existing patterns.
Done, please review set2

[Paweł Hajdan Jr., 2013-05-17 23:15:09]

Please make sure to test on Raring after applying the fix.

https://codereview.chromium.org/14718016/diff/5001/build/install-build-deps.sh
File build/install-build-deps.sh (right):

https://codereview.chromium.org/14718016/diff/5001/build/install-build-deps.s...
build/install-build-deps.sh:143: if [ "$(lsb_release -s -r)" = "13.04" ]; then
Well, this is fragile and won't work forward for Ubuntus more recent than 13.04.

Maybe I didn't notice it before, but it should use apt-cache show approach like
above, i.e. if libudev1 exists it should be used instead of libudev0.

[haltonhuo, 2013-05-20 02:08:32]

On 2013/05/17 23:15:09, Paweł Hajdan Jr. wrote:
> Please make sure to test on Raring after applying the fix.
Yes, I did.

> Maybe I didn't notice it before, but it should use apt-cache show approach
like
> above, i.e. if libudev1 exists it should be used instead of libudev0.

Done on set3, please review.

[Paweł Hajdan Jr., 2013-05-20 23:43:39]

LGTM, thanks for the patch!

[commit-bot: I haz the power, 2013-05-20 23:44:04]

CQ is trying da patch. Follow status at
https://chromium-status.appspot.com/cq/halton.huo@intel.com/14718016/9001

[commit-bot: I haz the power, 2013-05-21 08:26:45]

Change committed as 201259

[haaawk, 2013-05-21 17:38:59]

On 2013/05/21 08:26:45, I haz the power (commit-bot) wrote:
> Change committed as 201259

This check (apt-cache show libudev1 >/dev/null 2>&1) doesn't work for
12.04(precise). Script tries to install libudev1 instead of libudev0. Could you
please fix it?

[haltonhuo, 2013-05-22 01:59:10]

On 2013/05/21 17:38:59, haaawk wrote:
> On 2013/05/21 08:26:45, I haz the power (commit-bot) wrote:
> > Change committed as 201259
> 
> This check (apt-cache show libudev1 >/dev/null 2>&1) doesn't work for
> 12.04(precise). Script tries to install libudev1 instead of libudev0. Could
you
> please fix it?

Will do.

[haltonhuo, 2013-05-22 02:16:33]

On 2013/05/21 17:38:59, haaawk wrote:
> On 2013/05/21 08:26:45, I haz the power (commit-bot) wrote:
> > Change committed as 201259
> 
> This check (apt-cache show libudev1 >/dev/null 2>&1) doesn't work for
> 12.04(precise). Script tries to install libudev1 instead of libudev0. Could
you
> please fix it?

haaawk, my 12.04 shows me libudev0 correctly. Do you have a repo contains
libudev1?

$ lsb_release -r
Release:	12.04
$ if apt-cache show libudev1 > /dev/null 2>&1; then \
> echo "libudev1"
> else
> echo "libudev0"
> fi
libudev0

[haaawk, 2013-05-22 08:41:56]

On 2013/05/22 02:16:33, haltonhuo wrote:
> On 2013/05/21 17:38:59, haaawk wrote:
> > On 2013/05/21 08:26:45, I haz the power (commit-bot) wrote:
> > > Change committed as 201259
> > 
> > This check (apt-cache show libudev1 >/dev/null 2>&1) doesn't work for
> > 12.04(precise). Script tries to install libudev1 instead of libudev0. Could
> you
> > please fix it?
> 
> haaawk, my 12.04 shows me libudev0 correctly. Do you have a repo contains
> libudev1?
> 
> $ lsb_release -r
> Release:	12.04
> $ if apt-cache show libudev1 > /dev/null 2>&1; then \
> > echo "libudev1"
> > else
> > echo "libudev0"
> > fi
> libudev0

In my case, it's libudev1. When I run apt-cache show libudev1, I get:

~$apt-cache show libudev1
Package: libudev1
Status: deinstall ok config-files
Multi-Arch: same
Priority: important
Section: libs
Installed-Size: 112
Maintainer: Ubuntu Developers <ubuntu-devel-discuss@lists.ubuntu.com>
Architecture: amd64
Source: systemd
Version: 198-0ubuntu11.1
Config-Version: 198-0ubuntu11.1
Depends: libc6 (>= 2.17)
Pre-Depends: multiarch-support
Description: libudev shared library
 This library provides access to udev device information.
Homepage: http://www.freedesktop.org/wiki/Software/systemd
Original-Maintainer: Tollef Fog Heen <tfheen@debian.org>

~$echo $?
0

[haaawk, 2013-05-22 08:46:02]

On 2013/05/22 08:41:56, haaawk wrote:
> On 2013/05/22 02:16:33, haltonhuo wrote:
> > On 2013/05/21 17:38:59, haaawk wrote:
> > > On 2013/05/21 08:26:45, I haz the power (commit-bot) wrote:
> > > > Change committed as 201259
> > > 
> > > This check (apt-cache show libudev1 >/dev/null 2>&1) doesn't work for
> > > 12.04(precise). Script tries to install libudev1 instead of libudev0.
Could
> > you
> > > please fix it?
> > 
> > haaawk, my 12.04 shows me libudev0 correctly. Do you have a repo contains
> > libudev1?
> > 
> > $ lsb_release -r
> > Release:	12.04
> > $ if apt-cache show libudev1 > /dev/null 2>&1; then \
> > > echo "libudev1"
> > > else
> > > echo "libudev0"
> > > fi
> > libudev0
> 
> In my case, it's libudev1. When I run apt-cache show libudev1, I get:
> 
> ~$apt-cache show libudev1
> Package: libudev1
> Status: deinstall ok config-files
> Multi-Arch: same
> Priority: important
> Section: libs
> Installed-Size: 112
> Maintainer: Ubuntu Developers <mailto:ubuntu-devel-discuss@lists.ubuntu.com>
> Architecture: amd64
> Source: systemd
> Version: 198-0ubuntu11.1
> Config-Version: 198-0ubuntu11.1
> Depends: libc6 (>= 2.17)
> Pre-Depends: multiarch-support
> Description: libudev shared library
>  This library provides access to udev device information.
> Homepage: http://www.freedesktop.org/wiki/Software/systemd
> Original-Maintainer: Tollef Fog Heen <mailto:tfheen@debian.org>
> 
> ~$echo $?
> 0
When I purged libudev1 with sudo aptitude --purge-unused purge libudev1, I got:

~$apt-cache show libudev1
N: Can't select versions from package 'libudev1' as it is purely virtual
N: No packages found
~$echo $?
0

Which is still bad :(.

[haltonhuo, 2013-05-22 09:39:47]

On 2013/05/22 08:46:02, haaawk wrote:
> ~$apt-cache show libudev1
> N: Can't select versions from package 'libudev1' as it is purely virtual
> N: No packages found
> ~$echo $?
> 0
> 
> Which is still bad :(.

On my 12.04, it gives me different result:
$ apt-cache show libudev1
N: Unable to locate package libudev1
E: No packages found
$ echo $?
100

I guess it is because you ever add a repo with libudev1 there or manually
install it via .deb. Could you try to clean up your apt cache?

[haaawk, 2013-05-23 08:40:05]

On 2013/05/22 09:39:47, haltonhuo wrote:
> On 2013/05/22 08:46:02, haaawk wrote:
> > ~$apt-cache show libudev1
> > N: Can't select versions from package 'libudev1' as it is purely virtual
> > N: No packages found
> > ~$echo $?
> > 0
> > 
> > Which is still bad :(.
> 
> On my 12.04, it gives me different result:
> $ apt-cache show libudev1
> N: Unable to locate package libudev1
> E: No packages found
> $ echo $?
> 100
> 
> I guess it is because you ever add a repo with libudev1 there or manually
> install it via .deb. Could you try to clean up your apt cache?

Well, don't you think that having a repo with libudev1 added is a normal thing?
This script shouldn't depend on such subtle thing. This script is clearly wrong
in current version. It tries to install libudev1 instead of libudev0 on machines
with version of ubunto lower than 13.04 and some additional repo added.

[haltonhuo, 2013-05-23 09:39:36]

On 2013/05/23 08:40:05, haaawk wrote:
> Well, don't you think that having a repo with libudev1 added is a normal
thing?
Yes, it is normal. Again, I guess your failure case is because you ever install
libudev1 via .deb or repo. That cause "apt-cache show libudev1" return 0. Is
there any problem to install libudev1 on ubuntu 12.10/12.04?

> This script shouldn't depend on such subtle thing. This script is clearly
wrong
> in current version. It tries to install libudev1 instead of libudev0 on
machines
> with version of ubunto lower than 13.04 and some additional repo added.
My old patch set2 ever check the Ubuntu version rather than "apt-cache" logic.
But if you looked at other pkgs that need changed over time like
jpeg-dev/jpeg62-dev. They are use apt-cache way to determine. And I'm persuaded
by Pawel Hajdan that apt-cache is better than hard code ubuntu versions. 

Your failure is general issue not specific to libudev1, but general issue for
all other pkgs that need changed overtime. 

For instance, your default repo contains libjpeg62-dev, but you manually
installed a pkg libjpeg-dev. Thus, libjpeg-dev will be used. 
In this case, if developer really want jpeg62-dev one, he has to cleanup the
cache to allow this script choose it.

If you do not agree "apt-cache" is better than hardcode with ubuntu version.
That is another thing.

Back to your case. It seems to you install a .deb and purge it. Or add a repo
with libudev1 then remove that repo. But the cache keep tracking it and return
0. 

I think we have two ways to fix this senario:
1. Fix apt-cache, return non-zero if purely virtual package.
2. In this script, we track not only the return value but also the message.

Which one do you prefer to go? If goes #2, it is a separate chromium build tool.