Add dpkg control files to debian sysroot images

Add dpkg control files to debian sysroot images

This is useful for running dpkg-shlibdeps against
the sysroot image.

TEST=build/linux/sysroot_scripts/sysroot-creator-jessie.sh BuildSysrootAll
BUG=564904

[Sam Clegg, 2016-10-05 00:18:44]

sbc@chromium.org changed reviewers:
+ thestig@chromium.org

[Sam Clegg, 2016-10-05 00:18:44]

What do you think of this solution?

[Lei Zhang, 2016-10-05 01:21:39]

This is so we don't have to generate the dpkg admin dir, e.g. with
https://codereview.chromium.org/2391573005/, right?

[Sam Clegg, 2016-10-05 01:27:45]

On 2016/10/05 01:21:39, Lei Zhang wrote:
> This is so we don't have to generate the dpkg admin dir, e.g. with
> https://codereview.chromium.org/2391573005/, right?

I hope so yes.   Don't you agree that the shlib deps should be derived from the
sysroot?

[Sam Clegg, 2016-10-05 01:28:37]

On 2016/10/05 01:27:45, Sam Clegg wrote:
> On 2016/10/05 01:21:39, Lei Zhang wrote:
> > This is so we don't have to generate the dpkg admin dir, e.g. with
> > https://codereview.chromium.org/2391573005/, right?
> 
> I hope so yes.   Don't you agree that the shlib deps should be derived from
the
> sysroot?

My hope is that we can remove all references to precise and trusty from the
build and depend purely on the sysroot (wheezy or jessie).

[Lei Zhang, 2016-10-05 01:34:22]

On 2016/10/05 01:27:45, Sam Clegg wrote:
> On 2016/10/05 01:21:39, Lei Zhang wrote:
> > This is so we don't have to generate the dpkg admin dir, e.g. with
> > https://codereview.chromium.org/2391573005/, right?
> 
> I hope so yes.   Don't you agree that the shlib deps should be derived from
the
> sysroot?

Yes, sounds good and lgtm, but let's make sure those CC'd agree.

[Sam Clegg, 2016-10-05 01:35:50]

On 2016/10/05 01:34:22, Lei Zhang wrote:
> On 2016/10/05 01:27:45, Sam Clegg wrote:
> > On 2016/10/05 01:21:39, Lei Zhang wrote:
> > > This is so we don't have to generate the dpkg admin dir, e.g. with
> > > https://codereview.chromium.org/2391573005/, right?
> > 
> > I hope so yes.   Don't you agree that the shlib deps should be derived from
> the
> > sysroot?
> 
> Yes, sounds good and lgtm, but let's make sure those CC'd agree.

Actually it looks like this is not enough to make dpkg-shlibdeps happy :(

We would need and even more genuine sysroot to make it work... I will look into
that.

[Tom (Use chromium acct), 2016-10-05 01:46:07]

Description was changed from

==========
Add dpkg control files to debian sysroot images

This is useful for running dpkg-shlibdeps against
the sysroot image.

TEST=build/linux/sysroot_scripts/sysroot-creator-jessie.sh BuildSysrootAll
BUG=564904
==========

to

==========
Add dpkg control files to debian sysroot images

This is useful for running dpkg-shlibdeps against
the sysroot image.

TEST=build/linux/sysroot_scripts/sysroot-creator-jessie.sh BuildSysrootAll
BUG=564904
==========

[Tom (Use chromium acct), 2016-10-05 01:46:27]

On 2016/10/05 01:35:50, Sam Clegg wrote:
> On 2016/10/05 01:34:22, Lei Zhang wrote:
> > On 2016/10/05 01:27:45, Sam Clegg wrote:
> > > On 2016/10/05 01:21:39, Lei Zhang wrote:
> > > > This is so we don't have to generate the dpkg admin dir, e.g. with
> > > > https://codereview.chromium.org/2391573005/, right?
> > > 
> > > I hope so yes.   Don't you agree that the shlib deps should be derived
from
> > the
> > > sysroot?
> > 
> > Yes, sounds good and lgtm, but let's make sure those CC'd agree.
> 
> Actually it looks like this is not enough to make dpkg-shlibdeps happy :(
> 
> We would need and even more genuine sysroot to make it work... I will look
into
> that.

This is the solution I had in mind
Are you creating a status file in /var/lib/dpkg?
I think you can just copy each DEBIAN/control file and add the line "Status
install ok installed" to each package

also +dpranke@

[Sam Clegg, 2016-10-05 01:47:54]

On 2016/10/05 01:35:50, Sam Clegg wrote:
> On 2016/10/05 01:34:22, Lei Zhang wrote:
> > On 2016/10/05 01:27:45, Sam Clegg wrote:
> > > On 2016/10/05 01:21:39, Lei Zhang wrote:
> > > > This is so we don't have to generate the dpkg admin dir, e.g. with
> > > > https://codereview.chromium.org/2391573005/, right?
> > > 
> > > I hope so yes.   Don't you agree that the shlib deps should be derived
from
> > the
> > > sysroot?
> > 
> > Yes, sounds good and lgtm, but let's make sure those CC'd agree.
> 
> Actually it looks like this is not enough to make dpkg-shlibdeps happy :(
> 
> We would need and even more genuine sysroot to make it work... I will look
into
> that.

What do you think about switching the sysroots we use over to more normal debian
sysroots produced by "debootstrap"?  We could drop a lot of the sysroot creation
code that we currently have in place.. but we cede some control over the images
I suppose?  I think its probably the right way to go long term.    In the short
term I think perhaps we should just add expected_deps_trusty to
chrome/installer/linux/debian/ get the bots updated.

[Tom (Use chromium acct), 2016-10-05 01:53:06]

On 2016/10/05 01:47:54, Sam Clegg wrote:
> On 2016/10/05 01:35:50, Sam Clegg wrote:
> > On 2016/10/05 01:34:22, Lei Zhang wrote:
> > > On 2016/10/05 01:27:45, Sam Clegg wrote:
> > > > On 2016/10/05 01:21:39, Lei Zhang wrote:
> > > > > This is so we don't have to generate the dpkg admin dir, e.g. with
> > > > > https://codereview.chromium.org/2391573005/, right?
> > > > 
> > > > I hope so yes.   Don't you agree that the shlib deps should be derived
> from
> > > the
> > > > sysroot?
> > > 
> > > Yes, sounds good and lgtm, but let's make sure those CC'd agree.
> > 
> > Actually it looks like this is not enough to make dpkg-shlibdeps happy :(
> > 
> > We would need and even more genuine sysroot to make it work... I will look
> into
> > that.
> 
> What do you think about switching the sysroots we use over to more normal
debian
> sysroots produced by "debootstrap"?  We could drop a lot of the sysroot
creation
> code that we currently have in place.. but we cede some control over the
images
> I suppose?  I think its probably the right way to go long term.    In the
short
> term I think perhaps we should just add expected_deps_trusty to
> chrome/installer/linux/debian/ get the bots updated.

Can you try the /var/lib/dpkg/status thing first?  I think it should be a
relatively painless change for now.
Long term, I would definitely be interested in a chroot, and I'd be willing to
dedicate some man-hours to it.  dpranke@ what do you think about this?

[Sam Clegg, 2016-10-05 02:20:04]

On 2016/10/05 01:53:06, Tom Anderson wrote:
> On 2016/10/05 01:47:54, Sam Clegg wrote:
> > On 2016/10/05 01:35:50, Sam Clegg wrote:
> > > On 2016/10/05 01:34:22, Lei Zhang wrote:
> > > > On 2016/10/05 01:27:45, Sam Clegg wrote:
> > > > > On 2016/10/05 01:21:39, Lei Zhang wrote:
> > > > > > This is so we don't have to generate the dpkg admin dir, e.g. with
> > > > > > https://codereview.chromium.org/2391573005/, right?
> > > > > 
> > > > > I hope so yes.   Don't you agree that the shlib deps should be derived
> > from
> > > > the
> > > > > sysroot?
> > > > 
> > > > Yes, sounds good and lgtm, but let's make sure those CC'd agree.
> > > 
> > > Actually it looks like this is not enough to make dpkg-shlibdeps happy :(
> > > 
> > > We would need and even more genuine sysroot to make it work... I will look
> > into
> > > that.
> > 
> > What do you think about switching the sysroots we use over to more normal
> debian
> > sysroots produced by "debootstrap"?  We could drop a lot of the sysroot
> creation
> > code that we currently have in place.. but we cede some control over the
> images
> > I suppose?  I think its probably the right way to go long term.    In the
> short
> > term I think perhaps we should just add expected_deps_trusty to
> > chrome/installer/linux/debian/ get the bots updated.
> 
> Can you try the /var/lib/dpkg/status thing first?  I think it should be a
> relatively painless change for now.
> Long term, I would definitely be interested in a chroot, and I'd be willing to
> dedicate some man-hours to it.  dpranke@ what do you think about this?

Yeah, I can try the status thing, but its more than just that file.. there are
some other things that dpkg expects too I think.  Its gonna getting pretty hacky
pretty fast I think.

[Lei Zhang, 2016-10-05 08:46:50]

BTW, https://codereview.chromium.org/777533006/ was my other CL from way back
when. Hope it's helpful?

[Sam Clegg, 2016-10-06 21:56:19]

On 2016/10/05 08:46:50, Lei Zhang wrote:
> BTW, https://codereview.chromium.org/777533006/ was my other CL from way back
> when. Hope it's helpful?

I tried adding the hacking a status file together but it didn't solve the
problem.  I ended up with different errors from dpkg-shlibdeps:

```
Using shlibs+objdump for libXss.so.1 (file
/usr/lib/x86_64-linux-gnu/libXss.so.1)
 Looking up shlibs dependency of libXss.so.1 provided by 'libxss1:amd64'
 Found libxss1 in
/usr/local/google/home/sbc/dev/chromium/src/build/linux/debian_wheezy_amd64-sysroot//var/lib/dpkg/info/libxss1.shlibs
Using symbols file
/usr/local/google/home/sbc/dev/chromium/src/build/linux/debian_wheezy_amd64-sysroot//var/lib/dpkg/info/libxrandr2.symbols
for libXrandr.so.2
Using symbols file
/usr/local/google/home/sbc/dev/chromium/src/build/linux/debian_wheezy_amd64-sysroot//var/lib/dpkg/info/libxfixes3.symbols
for libXfixes.so.3
Using symbols file
/usr/local/google/home/sbc/dev/chromium/src/build/linux/debian_wheezy_amd64-sysroot//var/lib/dpkg/info/libasound2.symbols
for libasound.so.2
Using symbols file
/usr/local/google/home/sbc/dev/chromium/src/build/linux/debian_wheezy_amd64-sysroot//var/lib/dpkg/info/libcups2.symbols
for libcups.so.2
Using symbols file
/usr/local/google/home/sbc/dev/chromium/src/build/linux/debian_wheezy_amd64-sysroot//var/lib/dpkg/info/libxi6.symbols
for libXi.so.6
dpkg-query: error: package 'libpangocairo-1.0-0' is not installed
dpkg-shlibdeps: error: dpkg-query --control-path libpangocairo-1.0-0:amd64
symbols gave error exit status 2

```

with LD_LIBRARY_PATH set to point to the sysroot libs:

```
No associated package found for
/usr/local/google/home/sbc/dev/chromium/src/build/linux/debian_wheezy_amd64-sysroot/usr/lib/x86_64-linux-gnu/libgdk_pixbuf-2.0.so.0
Using shlibs+objdump for libgdk_pixbuf-2.0.so.0 (file
/usr/local/google/home/sbc/dev/chromium/src/build/linux/debian_wheezy_amd64-sysroot/usr/lib/x86_64-linux-gnu/libgdk_pixbuf-2.0.so.0)
 Looking up shlibs dependency of libgdk_pixbuf-2.0.so.0 provided by ''
 Found nothing
dpkg-shlibdeps: error: no dependency information found for
/usr/local/google/home/sbc/dev/chromium/src/build/linux/debian_wheezy_amd64-sysroot/usr/lib/x86_64-linux-gnu/libgdk_pixbuf-2.0.so.0
(used by /usr/local/google/home/sbc/dev/chromium/src/out/Release/chrome)
```

Makes me think perhaps this wouldn't work, even with a genuinely produced
sysroot