Sven Hoexter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > On Thu, Jan 17, 2008 at 10:26:48PM +0000, Sam Lewis wrote: > > Sven Hoexter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Moin moin, > > > a) The social/trust problem > [...] > > What solution could you think of? Does the development team use key? > > Well the Debian project has a known web of trust based on key exchange Sensible! > > > b) Technical problems [...] > > > ba) You're breaking the upgrade path. > [...] > > True, if you are using checkinstall binaries and (in the unlikely > > event of) your stable debian release upgrading to this specific lyx > > release, libraries might most probably not match. All you need to > > do is to reinstall, through the comfort of checkinstall the > > offending lyx package. > > > > sudo dpkg -r lyx > > And then there is the user who doesn't remember what he did in good > faith to his system. A year later he upgrades to the next stable > releases und this fscking update broke his nice LyX installation > working for fine for the last year. So who's responsible for the non [...] What kind of LyX user (who opts for the latest version of LyX) do you envisage? All the packages clearly state in the README file that they are checkinstall. [...] > > > bb) Maintainer scripts have a reason > > > For example somebody doing QA work recently noticed that we've > > > left an /etc/lyxrc file on the system with the 1.4.x->1.5.x > > > upgrade which should not happen. So we're now cleaning up behind > > > us with a maintainer script which is of course bound to special > > > versions. You'll break if you install your current package an try > > > to upgrade it at a later point to a Debian version again. In this > > > case it's only an unused old file but it could of course be > > > anything more important. > > > > So how about a recommendation that users when installing a > > checkinstall binary should uses the following command line: > > > > sudo dpkg -r lyx && sudo dpkg -i lyx_1.5.3-1_i386_etch.deb && sudo > > apt-get -f install > > Here you missed the point. The error (actually an error we made in > the Debian package) is in the 1.4.x packages and will be resolved > with a maintainer script in the latest revision of the 1.5.x package. > In this special case the file will be left on the system even if you > purge the package. So your proposed fiddling won't solve anything. OK, I see. [...] > > > bc) Dependencies don't exist for fun. > > > > See above. > > The toolchain with dpkg and apt were build to resolve the > dependencies for you and you're ignoring that part completly. > Installing the checkinstall package you can even remove latex (maybe > some clean up mechanism even suggest to remove them because they look > unused now) without anything complaining. That's what I was trying to say. You might be surprised I've seen people running LyX on a tiny system without any latex for the purpose of writing and managing lyx files. I personally have used TexLive for years and was precisely only able to do this as I complied source myself rather than using an "official" LyX version linked to tetex in some distro. Again, what kind of LyX users are there? Why link LyX to a specific latex? Would there be anyone who does not know the relationship between LyX and latex, I wonder? Btw, you might like to read the following discussion on checkinstall stating that some consider the absence of dependencies in checkinstall packages as *either a bug or a feature* ! http://www.debian-administration.org/articles/147 > > > Bds......) i386? And where is the rest? > > > > Yep that would be good, but to make it clear, this is an > > instrumental move. I'm not a developer or maintainer; I am a social > > scientist, who uses LyX on a daily basis on computers that happen > > to be i386. For the benefit of others, I am providing my own > > compiled binaries, for others who don't have the knowledge or the > > resources to compile the source themselves. > > I might count that in as the only small benefit. Thanks! [...] > What I don't get is why you waste your time with this broken > checkinstall crap? It's only a very small step you've to make to get > the source package and create a backport. The Debian source packages > are free for everyone to use (that's essentialy what Ubuntu and other > distributions are based upon). I thought I was saving time, by just typing checkinstall rather make install. > The prefered solution for Debian would be to find a DD willing to > sponsor the backports.org uploads. Per has no time and interested in > the backports stuff and I'm not a DD yet. > I guess something similar would be needed for Ubuntu backports but > I'm not involved there. It seems that they've a few more releases in > work which should be supported with backports but that's a manpower > issue. > > So please use the source packages and build proper backports instead > of punching your package management system right in the face! One and a half thing: Backporting always presents a slight security issues, which can be minimised by backporting as few as possible decencies, if understand this correctly (see http://debian.ethz.ch/pub/debian-backports/utils/Backport-HOWTO.html ). Main point how, much time and effort does this really take? Perhaps you can send me some relevant links off list about the issue. Many thanks for helping to clarify some of the issues. Cheers, Sam
