On Tue, 01 Jun 2010, Jonathan Niehof wrote:
> This is a great addition; however, if the user has changed the
> conffile *and* the maintainer also changes it in the same version
> where it is moved, the user's file is left silently in place and the
> maintainer's installed as .dpkg-new. This seems s
On Mon, May 24, 2010 at 5:05 AM, Raphael Hertzog wrote:
> * The dpkg-maintscript-helper tool has been introduced in dpkg 1.15.7.2
> to help packagers deal with renaming conffiles and removing obsolete
> conffiles.
This is a great addition; however, if the user has changed the
conffile *an
On Sat, May 29, 2010 at 02:17:27PM +0200, Thomas Weber wrote:
> So, we are talking about 1000 packages which are up-to-date in
> unstable currently. Bugs don't change that picture much. I consider this
> manageable during a full cycle.
>
> And frankly, arguing back and forth about this is an exerc
On Thu, 27 May 2010 21:36:17 +0200, Jean-Christophe Dubacq
wrote:
>On 27/05/2010 21:17, Tollef Fog Heen wrote:
>> I wasn't around for the libc5 => libc6 transition, but my understanding
>> is it was larger than 20% of the archive. I would guesstimate the
>> removal of /usr/X11R6 at being around t
On Thu, May 27, 2010 at 07:45:30PM -0400, James Vega wrote:
> On Thu, May 27, 2010 at 10:47:47PM +0200, Thomas Weber wrote:
> > How many packages are we talking about here? Is there a way to get the
> > number of packages that have the same version in Lenny and Squeeze?
>
> According to a quick qu
Le jeudi 27 mai 2010 à 13:38 -0500, Peter Samuelson a écrit :
> It's pretty clear that this is social engineering. The dpkg
> maintainers want to force every package maintainer to _think_ about
> which source format they wish to use. To ensure that, in the long run,
> you no longer have the choic
On Thu, May 27, 2010 at 10:47:47PM +0200, Thomas Weber wrote:
> How many packages are we talking about here? Is there a way to get the
> number of packages that have the same version in Lenny and Squeeze?
According to a quick query on UDD, there are 3169 source packages which
have the same source
On Thu, 27 May 2010 10:05:51 +0200, Raphael Hertzog wrote:
> Yes, we're starting a long-term migration that will require every package
> to be modified. [..]
> No, we won't break packages, it's a migration and dpkg-source will be
> switched only when all packages have been modified. There are warn
On Wed, May 26, 2010 at 10:34:32PM +0100, Neil Williams wrote:
> On Wed, 26 May 2010 22:59:25 +0200
> Iustin Pop wrote:
>
> > On Wed, May 26, 2010 at 10:43:36PM +0200, Bernd Zeimetz wrote:
> > > On 05/24/2010 11:05 AM, Raphael Hertzog wrote:
>
> I think the announcement is wrong, we cannot ever
Joey,
first of all thanks for the data... :)
On 2010-05-27, Joey Hess wrote:
> I wonder if anything can be learned from debhelper's history of
> compatability levels.
>
> numpkgs compat level introduced deprecated
> 1 8 Jun 2010
You really are from the future, then. ;-)
Peter Samuelson wrote:
> It's pretty clear that this is social engineering. The dpkg
> maintainers want to force every package maintainer to _think_ about
> which source format they wish to use. To ensure that, in the long run,
> you no longer have the choice to simply ignore the format war.
I w
On 27/05/2010 21:17, Tollef Fog Heen wrote:
> I wasn't around for the libc5 => libc6 transition, but my understanding
> is it was larger than 20% of the archive. I would guesstimate the
> removal of /usr/X11R6 at being around the 20% mark (including binNMUs
> and all). So while they're uncommon,
Bernhard R. Link wrote:
> There are mostly three possibilities:
> 2) not require the file but choose old format in that case
>-> in case of error people silently get the old deficit format
That problem can easily be avoided by adding deprecation warnings.
Debhelper does this for packages that
]] Steve Langasek
| On Thu, May 27, 2010 at 02:54:17PM +0200, Tollef Fog Heen wrote:
| > ]] Neil Williams
|
| > | You seem to think that every package is going to be uploaded just for
| > | the sake of an upload.
|
| > | There is no way to guarantee that ALL packages in Debian will be
| > | up
On Thu, May 27, 2010 at 02:54:17PM +0200, Tollef Fog Heen wrote:
> ]] Neil Williams
> | You seem to think that every package is going to be uploaded just for
> | the sake of an upload.
> | There is no way to guarantee that ALL packages in Debian will be
> | uploaded again by some point in the fu
[Gerfried Fuchs]
> Requiring the file won't get rid of format 1.0 but will make people put
> 1.0 into debian/source/format. Planing to make the file mandatory might
> indeed make more people think about it, though having the file won't
> make the format 1.0 go away.
It's pretty clear that this i
* Gerfried Fuchs [100527 11:47]:
> Requiring the file won't get rid of format 1.0 but will make people put
> 1.0 into debian/source/format. Planing to make the file mandatory might
> indeed make more people think about it, though having the file won't
> make the format 1.0 go away. There are alre
On Thu, May 27, 2010 at 03:44:40PM +0200, Carsten Hey wrote:
> * Mike Hommey [2010-05-27 12:00 +0200]:
> > There is one possible benefit: impossibility to create a native package
> > when the .orig.tar.gz is missing, which happens much too often.
>
> Doesn't look like it's impossible:
>
> | dpkg-
* Carsten Hey [2010-05-27 15:44 +0200]:
> * Mike Hommey [2010-05-27 12:00 +0200]:
> > There is one possible benefit: impossibility to create a native package
> > when the .orig.tar.gz is missing, which happens much too often.
>
> Doesn't look like it's impossible:
>
> | dpkg-source: info: source f
* Mike Hommey [2010-05-27 12:00 +0200]:
> There is one possible benefit: impossibility to create a native package
> when the .orig.tar.gz is missing, which happens much too often.
Doesn't look like it's impossible:
| dpkg-source: info: source format `3.0 (quilt)' discarded: no orig.tar file
foun
]] Neil Williams
| You seem to think that every package is going to be uploaded just for
| the sake of an upload.
|
| There is no way to guarantee that ALL packages in Debian will be
| uploaded again by some point in the future.
|
| If a package does not need an upload - e.g. the only "issue" i
On Thu, May 27, 2010 at 12:00:47PM +0200, Mike Hommey wrote:
> On Thu, May 27, 2010 at 11:26:02AM +0200, Gerfried Fuchs wrote:
> > Hi!
> >
> > * Philipp Kern [2010-05-27 08:11:36 CEST]:
> > | As far as I understood it, it's not that much about unpacking, because
> > | the format is pretty cle
On Thu, May 27, 2010 at 12:27:40PM +0200, Bastian Blank wrote:
> On Thu, May 27, 2010 at 12:00:47PM +0200, Mike Hommey wrote:
> > > Why they want it unfortunately is a wrong reasoning - the actual
> > > pending and still unanswered question is "why it is needed". They
> > > want people to switch t
On Thu, 27 May 2010, Gerfried Fuchs wrote:
> * Philipp Kern [2010-05-27 09:05:39 CEST]:
> > But I guess we already determined that automatic detection of various
> > things isn't always the best choice. Making 1.0 non-native and 1.0
> > native explicit wouldn't sound too wrong. :P)
>
> Unfortu
On Thu, May 27, 2010 at 12:00:47PM +0200, Mike Hommey wrote:
> > Why they want it unfortunately is a wrong reasoning - the actual
> > pending and still unanswered question is "why it is needed". They
> > want people to switch to 3.0. By forcing to put something into
> > debian/source/format people
On Donnerstag, 27. Mai 2010, Mike Hommey wrote:
> There is one possible benefit: impossibility to create a native package
> when the .orig.tar.gz is missing, which happens much too often.
in my world (which doesnt consist entirely out of Debian main on
ftp.debian.org) this is a regression.
sig
On Thu, May 27, 2010 at 11:26:02AM +0200, Gerfried Fuchs wrote:
> Hi!
>
> * Philipp Kern [2010-05-27 08:11:36 CEST]:
> | As far as I understood it, it's not that much about unpacking, because
> | the format is pretty clear then, but about packing (or in this case
> | repacking) the source p
Hi!
* Raphael Hertzog [2010-05-27 10:05:51 CEST]:
> Yes, we're starting a long-term migration that will require every
> package to be modified. The reasons are that the dpkg maintainers
> consider the format 1.0 to no longer be a desirable default for
> dpkg-source given the availability
* Philipp Kern [2010-05-27 09:05:39 CEST]:
> But I guess we already determined that automatic detection of various
> things isn't always the best choice. Making 1.0 non-native and 1.0
> native explicit wouldn't sound too wrong. :P)
Unfortunately, dpkg doesn't support that - thus adding
debian/
Hi!
* Philipp Kern [2010-05-27 08:11:36 CEST]:
| As far as I understood it, it's not that much about unpacking, because
| the format is pretty clear then, but about packing (or in this case
| repacking) the source package. There you should be explicit in what
| you mean because future ve
On 05/26/2010 11:07 PM, Ben Hutchings wrote:
> Environment variables do not override variable definitions in a makefile.
You can't believe how messy upstream stuff can be. Messing with $(LDFLAGS) and
$${LDFLAGS} and simmilar stuff just happens
--
Bernd ZeimetzDe
Hi,
On Wed, 26 May 2010, Bernd Zeimetz wrote:
> > * dpkg-dev provides a new script called dpkg-buildflags that packages
> > should use in debian/rules to retrieve the default value of various
> > compilation flags. Bug #578597[1] has been submitted against
> > debian-policy. When gen
On Thu, 27 May 2010 09:12:24 +0200
Iustin Pop wrote:
> Data packages are a good point, to which I reply: how will they take
> advantages of new compression formats?
No need - just because these are data packages doesn't mean they are
even tens of kilobytes in size. These are source packages, not
Neil,
am Thu, May 27, 2010 at 08:04:25AM +0100 hast du folgendes geschrieben:
> dpkg should not abort - that will cause a FTBFS through no fault of the
> package. First thing dpkg-buildpackage does is pack up the unpacked
> source.
no, it does not for '-B', which is what our infrastructure uses.
On Thu, May 27, 2010 at 07:54:03AM +0100, Neil Williams wrote:
> On Wed, 26 May 2010 23:44:52 +0200
> Iustin Pop wrote:
> > > There is nothing wrong with a source package that glides through
> > > several stable releases without needing a rebuild, especially if it
> > > only builds an Arch:all bin
On 2010-05-27, Neil Williams wrote:
>> No, it doesn't. It is now but at some point there won't be any
>> default, meaning that if you don't have debian/source/format, dpkg
>> will error out. Nothing wrong with that.
> If, eventually, dpkg fails with an error when debian/source/format does
> not ex
On Thu, 27 May 2010 06:11:36 + (UTC)
Philipp Kern wrote:
> On 2010-05-26, Holger Levsen wrote:
> > On Mittwoch, 26. Mai 2010, Philipp Kern wrote:
> >> ETOPIC. You have to specify the format in the package.
The lack of debian/source/format should be a de facto declaration of
source format
On Wed, 26 May 2010 23:44:52 +0200
Iustin Pop wrote:
> On Wed, May 26, 2010 at 10:34:32PM +0100, Neil Williams wrote:
> > I think the announcement is wrong, we cannot ever expect every
> > single package to be touched for any single change. We don't even
> > do that when libc changes SONAME - tha
On Thu, 27 May 2010 00:16:01 +0200
Emilio Pozuelo Monfort wrote:
Putting the list back into the loop.
> On 26/05/10 23:34, Neil Williams wrote:
> > Declaring a format mandates touching every single package because
> > the vast majority of packages are currently dpkg source format 1.0
> > ONLY be
On 2010-05-26, Holger Levsen wrote:
> On Mittwoch, 26. Mai 2010, Philipp Kern wrote:
>> ETOPIC. You have to specify the format in the package. Nowhere they
>> write that 1.0 will disappear. And they say "in the long term" too, so
>> "debian/source/format" should be propagating naturally into mo
Hi,
On Mittwoch, 26. Mai 2010, Philipp Kern wrote:
> ETOPIC. You have to specify the format in the package. Nowhere they write
> that 1.0 will disappear. And they say "in the long term" too, so
> "debian/source/format" should be propagating naturally into most of the
> packages due to the linti
On Wed, May 26, 2010 at 10:34:32PM +0100, Neil Williams wrote:
> On Wed, 26 May 2010 22:59:25 +0200
> Iustin Pop wrote:
>
> > On Wed, May 26, 2010 at 10:43:36PM +0200, Bernd Zeimetz wrote:
> > > On 05/24/2010 11:05 AM, Raphael Hertzog wrote:
> > > > * The plan concerning dpkg-source and the def
On Wed, 26 May 2010 22:59:25 +0200
Iustin Pop wrote:
> On Wed, May 26, 2010 at 10:43:36PM +0200, Bernd Zeimetz wrote:
> > On 05/24/2010 11:05 AM, Raphael Hertzog wrote:
> > > * The plan concerning dpkg-source and the default source format
> > > has been clarified. In the long term, the default
On Wed, May 26, 2010 at 10:43:36PM +0200, Bernd Zeimetz wrote:
> On 05/24/2010 11:05 AM, Raphael Hertzog wrote:
> > Hello,
> >
> > The versions 1.15.6 and 1.15.7 of dpkg introduced several important changes.
> > Let's skim over them:
> [...]
> > * dpkg-dev provides a new script called dpkg-build
On Wed, May 26, 2010 at 10:43:36PM +0200, Bernd Zeimetz wrote:
> On 05/24/2010 11:05 AM, Raphael Hertzog wrote:
> > * The plan concerning dpkg-source and the default source format has been
> > clarified. In the long term, the default format will disappear and
> > debian/source/format will
On 2010-05-26, Bernd Zeimetz wrote:
>> * The plan concerning dpkg-source and the default source format has been
>> clarified. In the long term, the default format will disappear and
>> debian/source/format will become mandatory. The lintian tag
>> missing-debian-source-format[2] will
On 05/24/2010 11:05 AM, Raphael Hertzog wrote:
> Hello,
>
> The versions 1.15.6 and 1.15.7 of dpkg introduced several important changes.
> Let's skim over them:
[...]
> * dpkg-dev provides a new script called dpkg-buildflags that packages
> should use in debian/rules to retrieve the default
47 matches
Mail list logo
