On 02/04/11 at 17:14 -0700, Antonio Terceiro wrote: > Hi, > > Lucas Nussbaum escreveu isso aí: > > On 31/03/11 at 10:52 -0700, Antonio Terceiro wrote: > > > Hi, > > > > > > I need one DD to upload ruby-mocha. It is in our new set of git > > > repositories, more specifically at: > > > > > > git+ssh://git.debian.org/git/pkg-ruby-extras/ruby-mocha.git > > > > > > I will be able to do further uploads on my on as a DM. > > > > > > After the package enters the archive, I will request the removal of > > > the libmocha-ruby*. > > > > Looks quite good. > > Have you tested upgrades? I'm wondering whether we shouldn't add > > transition packages (and have have an helper too that generates the > > debian/control entry for those metapackages, since we will have lots of > > them). > > Good point. Actually, using transitional packages would be the only way > to get the packages upgraded automatically in the case they were > installed directly (as opposed to installed as a dependency of other > package). > > On the other hand, having the transitional packages will defeat one of > our objectives: to have no lib*-ruby packages in the archive. Also, if > we do use transitional packages you will end up with *a lot* of them in > the archive. > > I saved the list of binary packages listed in the output of your UDD CGI > script on /tmp/packages and checked how many transitional packages we > would need: > > $ sed -e '/^lib/!d; s/1.8//; s/1.9.1//' /tmp/packages | sort -u | wc -l > 363 > > Since ruby-foo would Replace/Provide/Conflict with libfoo-ruby, > libfoo-ruby1.8 and libfoo-ruby1.9.1, then I removed the version suffixes > and then obtained the list of unique library names. > > IMO using transitional packages would be OK for a few packages, but > having 363 transitional packages seems dirty to me. > > Alternatively, we could do the following for every ruby-foo packages > that gets in the archive: > > 0) Ping maintainers of reverse dependencies and ask them to depend on > ruby-foo instead of libfoo-ruby > > 1) Request removal of libfoo-ruby from the archive. Even non-updated > dependencies on libfoo-ruby will then be provided by ruby-foo anyway. > > Additionally, we could also provide a tool (update-debian-ruby?) that > detects all lib*-ruby* installed on the system and proposes the user to > install the equivalent ruby.* packages (what would then trigger the > removal of lib*-ruby* packages).
I think that the only correct Debian way to ensure clean upgrades is to provide transition packages, unfortunately. Of course, we should also ensure that r-deps use the ruby-foo packages, but there are many ruby packages that have no r-deps, or that are often used without r-deps. The good thing is that the transitional packages can go away as soon as wheezy is released... - Lucas -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [email protected] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [email protected] Archive: http://lists.debian.org/[email protected]
