Hi Andreas My NMU was in no way meant to critice your maintenance of util-linux or to attack you. It's just that in the current phase of the release process it's time to fix these bugs and my aim is to help with that. As you stated that you are not very motivated to work on this bug I thought you would appreciate this help.
Andreas Henriksson <andr...@fatal.se> writes: > Hello Gaudenz Steinlin. > > On Mon, Feb 02, 2015 at 11:25:55AM +0100, Gaudenz Steinlin wrote: >> Of course a fix in util-linux can't solve problems resulting from other >> packages. All packages that call update-initramfs and don't depend on >> initramfs-tools need the same Breaks relation to live-tools. I don't >> know how many other such packages exist beside util-linux. > > Easy to find out thanks to the awesome codesearch: > http://codesearch.debian.net/perpackage-results/update-initramfs/2/page_0 > (Adding regexps to the query for filtering out only relevant matches is left > as an exercise to the reader.) > > In other words, many.... That is why adding breaks IMHO is not a > viable solution at all anywhere. That does not really help much because we don't need a list of packages that mention update-initramfs in some file but a list of packages that call update-initramfs in their maintainerscript without depending on initramfs-tools. I don't think codesearch is able to produce that list, but to me this seems like a quite special case. I would expect most packages that modify the initramfs to actually depend on initramfs-tools. But I agree that probably more packages than just util-linux need fixing for this. But this is outside the scope of this bug and as long as no other bugs are filed, it's hard to track. I also don't see a viable solution to this bug which fixes all of these problems in one go. >> I agree that fixing the problem with Breaks is a bit ugly and in theory >> adds the fix to the "wrong" package. But I currently don't see any >> viable other solution to this problem beside adding all these Breaks >> relations. An update to the stable version of live-tools does not seem >> practical to me. Do you see another way to fix this? > > Yes. Please read my previous mail to the bug report. So if I got you right, you would prefer to remove the update-initramfs call from util-linux's postinst. I'm fine with that. I can do another upload if you confirm that's your prefered solution. If initramfs-tools from current unstable really does not go into testing, then I agree that is probably the slightly better alternative. To me as an NMUer the Breaks seemd like the safer option as it's a no-op as long as live-tools is not installed on the same system. So there is less chance that the NMU breaks something. >> >> > >> > This is just one example out of several problems I see with your NMU. >> >> Which other problem do you see? > > Well, for one: > Your NMU is RC buggy, given that you incorporated the previous NMU with > bugs and all. Thanks for taking responsibility for that. ;) Well for one it was not my upload that introduced this RC bug. The version of the previous NMU was already in *testing* when I did my upload. IMO we are all colectively responsible for getting the jessie RC bug count down. So it's as much my responsibility to fix this as yours. ;-) But if I do another upload I will also fix the typo in the 4.1 NMU. I missed the fact that the 4.1 NMU did not fix the bug it claimed to fix. > > Please, again, also read my previous mail to the bug report you're > trying to fix and you'll find a similar but IMHO much more valid reason > to add a Breaks for another package (which is also that packages bug and > not a bug in util-linux). I don't understand what you mean here. Maybe you should be a bit more explicit in your message instead of alluding to what others should do. > As you probably understand, I'm trying to urge you into looking at the > whole picture instead of just a tiny part. That way I'm sure you'll > likely come up with much better solutions. I don't completely understand what you are aiming at. IMO I always considered the whole picture but I don't see why the grml-debootstrap issue is related. Yes it's an issue, yes it'might be solved with a Breaks (did not look into it very deeply). But it's not about update-initramfs and has a completely different cause. I don't see how these two issues can be solved together. They seem quite orthogonal to me. And last but not least the grml-debootstrap does not even have RC severity at the moment. If you as one of the util-linux maintainers think this is RC, please set the severity accordingly. Gaudenz P.S.: If you really don't like the upload and prefer the current state in testing you should also comment on the unblock bug which is #776765. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-bugs-dist-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
