On Fri, 2019-05-10 at 11:04 +0200, Thomas Goirand wrote:
> On 5/9/19 6:25 PM, Andrej Shadura wrote:
> > How about the format opkg used for some time, which is a .deb file
> > but
> > with tar as the outer container format instead of ar?
>
> This is a very bad idea. When installing a large amount o
Hi Adam,
On Fri, 2019-05-10 at 16:11 +0200, Adam Borowski wrote:
> /usr on the box I'm sitting at:
> * zip the program: dies horribly due to /usr/lib/llvm-7/build/
> symlink
> loops.
> * zip:
> 1891345142 bytes
> * zip-the-concept (individually compressed files), xz
> 1516943024 byte
hi,
so there is "#928172 debian-security-support: fails to upgrade from 'testing':
dpkg: error: error executing hook" which happens when base-files is upgraded
before debian-security-support (but doesnt happen if d-s-s is upgraded first...)
So I think this can only be fixed properly (=without ask
[re-sent with debian-release list address corrected...]
hi,
so there is "#928172 debian-security-support: fails to upgrade from 'testing':
dpkg: error: error executing hook" which happens when base-files is upgraded
before debian-security-support (but doesnt happen if d-s-s is upgraded first...)
On Mon, May 13, 2019 at 11:32:36AM +, Holger Levsen wrote:
> hi,
>
> so there is "#928172 debian-security-support: fails to upgrade from 'testing':
> dpkg: error: error executing hook" which happens when base-files is upgraded
> before debian-security-support (but doesnt happen if d-s-s is upg
On Mon, 2019-05-13 at 11:52 +, Holger Levsen wrote:
> [re-sent with debian-release list address corrected...]
>
>
> hi,
>
> so there is "#928172 debian-security-support: fails to upgrade from 'testing':
> dpkg: error: error executing hook" which happens when base-files is upgraded
> before d
On May 13, Holger Levsen wrote:
> So I think this can only be fixed properly (=without asking people to
> upgrade to the latest stretch pointrelease but instead allowing upgrades
> to buster from *any* stretch pointrelease) by adding a "pre-depends:
> debian-security-support (>= 2019.04.25)" to b
As promised, I'd like to start a discussion on whether we want to
recommend using the dh command from debhelper as our preferred build
system.
As we can see on https://trends.debian.net/#build-systems a majority of
packages already use dh. So what would it mean to recommend dh?
The New Maintain
Hi Sam,
On 2019-05-13 12:33, Sam Hartman wrote:
> The New Maintainer's Guide [1] already is based around debhelper and dh
> and effectively recommends it strongly. So it wouldn't mean that.
>
> [1]: https://www.debian.org/doc/manuals/maint-guide/
Several years ago I nearly re-translated maint
On Mon, May 13, 2019 at 08:33:44AM -0400, Sam Hartman wrote:
> Today at least I don't think we're talking about making not using dh an
> RC bug. It would not make a lot of sense to me to start there.
indeed. using dh should currently be a "should" in policy, with two
exceptions:
- packages using
On Mon, May 13, 2019 at 02:17:46PM +0200, Marco d'Itri wrote:
> I strongly object to adding this package, and its dependency
> gettext-base, to the transitive essential set.
I'll respond to this in a moment. (I agree but it just takes a bit
longer to respond to this.)
> I tried installing it (I
On May 13, Sam Hartman wrote:
> As promised, I'd like to start a discussion on whether we want to
> recommend using the dh command from debhelper as our preferred build
> system.
I have already asked this last time, but nobody answered.
I use debhelper in all of my packages but I have never switc
On Mon, May 13, 2019 at 11:25:11AM +0200, Ansgar wrote:
> On Fri, 2019-05-10 at 16:11 +0200, Adam Borowski wrote:
> > /usr on the box I'm sitting at:
> > * zip the program: dies horribly due to /usr/lib/llvm-7/build/
> > symlink
> > loops.
> > * zip:
> > 1891345142 bytes
> > * zip-the-concept
Hi,
Le 13/05/2019 à 14:33, Sam Hartman a écrit :
> Why Would we Want This?
> ===
dh is gret for the vast majority of packages. Whenever your rules files
ends up with the simple catch all line, plus a couple of auto_something
overrides, its probably the best solution.
For com
On Mon, 2019-05-13 at 06:08 -0700, Mo Zhou wrote:
[...]
> In brief:
> * if maintained by person: no restriction, given that
> the maintainer is not MIA
> * if team-maintained: recommend dh
I would suggest almost the opposite. If a team is happy to use an
unusual tool, that's OK because there is
Ben Hutchings wrote:
>
>On Mon, 2019-05-13 at 06:08 -0700, Mo Zhou wrote:
>[...]
>> In brief:
>> * if maintained by person: no restriction, given that
>> the maintainer is not MIA
>> * if team-maintained: recommend dh
>
>I would suggest almost the opposite. If a team is happy to use an
>unusual
On Mon, 13 May 2019, 4:43 pm Thibaut Paumard, wrote:
> However converting a package with a more convoluted rules files
> will take humanpower. While it may be justified to convert a mildly
> complex rules file on a package that has some activity, I don't think I
> would invest those resources to
On 5/13/19 3:57 PM, Marco d'Itri wrote:
> On May 13, Sam Hartman wrote:
>
>> As promised, I'd like to start a discussion on whether we want to
>> recommend using the dh command from debhelper as our preferred build
>> system.
> I have already asked this last time, but nobody answered.
> I use deb
Hi Ben,
On 2019-05-13 15:10, Ben Hutchings wrote:
> On Mon, 2019-05-13 at 06:08 -0700, Mo Zhou wrote:
> [...]
>> In brief:
>> * if maintained by person: no restriction, given that
>> the maintainer is not MIA
>> * if team-maintained: recommend dh
>
> I would suggest almost the opposite. If a t
> "Holger" == Holger Levsen writes:
Holger> - packages using cdbs. cdbs has features dh doesnt have and
Holger> I dont think it's wrong to use cdbs. (
Just for my information, what are the big features cdbs has that dh does
not?
> "Thomas" == Thomas Goirand writes:
Thomas> Now, I have another example, which is quite the opposite one
Thomas> of what you gave as example:
Thomas>
https://salsa.debian.org/openstack-team/debian/openstack-debian-images/blob/debian/stein/debian/rules
Thomas> Why would one
On 13.05.19 15:39, Holger Levsen wrote:
Maybe we could also make the "should" stronger:
- new packages (except if they are ment to become build-depends of
debhelper)*must* either use dh or cdbs.
- old packages should be switched to dh (or cdbs).
And then turn this "should" into a "must" for
On Mon, 13 May 2019 at 15:57:34 +0200, Marco d'Itri wrote:
> I have already asked this last time, but nobody answered.
> I use debhelper in all of my packages but I have never switched to dh:
> why should I bother?
Here are some reasons you might want to consider.
When modifying those packages,
On Mon, May 13, 2019 at 05:58:47PM +0200, Thomas Goirand wrote:
> https://salsa.debian.org/openstack-team/debian/openstack-debian-images/blob/debian/stein/debian/rules
> Why would one want to switch that one to something else?
- because it makes archive wide changes a lot easier.
- it's also simp
reassign -1 base-files
retitle -1 base-files: please add a break on d-s-s < 2019.04.25
thanks
On Mon, May 13, 2019 at 01:00:14PM +0100, Ben Hutchings wrote:
> On Mon, 2019-05-13 at 11:52 +, Holger Levsen wrote:
> > So I think this can only be fixed properly (=without asking people to
> > upgra
On Mon, 2019-05-13 at 19:08 +, Holger Levsen wrote:
> reassign -1 base-files
> retitle -1 base-files: please add a break on d-s-s < 2019.04.25
> thanks
>
> On Mon, May 13, 2019 at 01:00:14PM +0100, Ben Hutchings wrote:
> > On Mon, 2019-05-13 at 11:52 +, Holger Levsen wrote:
> > > So I thin
On Mon, May 13, 2019 at 08:33:44AM -0400, Sam Hartman wrote:
>...
> Andreas Tille's explanation (quoted below) is typical of what I've heard
> in this area.
>
> >To come back
> >to the question: I'm positively convinced that we should strive to
> >unify our packaging as much as possible and in ter
On Mon, May 13, 2019 at 08:17:26PM +0100, Ben Hutchings wrote:
> On Mon, 2019-05-13 at 19:08 +, Holger Levsen wrote:
> > reassign -1 base-files
> > retitle -1 base-files: please add a break on d-s-s < 2019.04.25
and FWIW and for future releases, I've just now done
https://salsa.debian.org/deb
Adam Borowski writes:
> On Mon, May 13, 2019 at 11:25:11AM +0200, Ansgar wrote:
>> It supports solid compression[1] which
>> compresses multiple files into one block like tar.xz, but unlike tar.xz
>> can use more than one block: "Later versions of 7-zip use a variable
>> solid block size, so that o
On 5/13/19 3:39 PM, Holger Levsen wrote:
> On Mon, May 13, 2019 at 08:33:44AM -0400, Sam Hartman wrote:
>> Today at least I don't think we're talking about making not using dh an
>> RC bug. It would not make a lot of sense to me to start there.
>
> indeed. using dh should currently be a "should"
On Mon, May 13, 2019 at 03:37:55PM -0400, Sam Hartman wrote:
> Bernd> gcc also needs a compiler to build - so I think it should be
> Bernd> safe to allow debhelper to build its package using
> Bernd> debhelper. Or am I missing something here?
> If we reach consensus on the overall idea,
> "Bernd" == Bernd Zeimetz writes:
>> - build-depends of debhelper.
Bernd> gcc also needs a compiler to build - so I think it should be
Bernd> safe to allow debhelper to build its package using
Bernd> debhelper. Or am I missing something here?
If we reach consensus on the o
> "Holger" == Holger Levsen writes:
Holger> On Mon, May 13, 2019 at 03:37:55PM -0400, Sam Hartman wrote:
Bernd> gcc also needs a compiler to build - so I think it should be
Bernd> safe to allow debhelper to build its package using
Bernd> debhelper. Or am I missing something he
On Monday, May 13, 2019 8:33:44 AM EDT Sam Hartman wrote:
> As promised, I'd like to start a discussion on whether we want to
> recommend using the dh command from debhelper as our preferred build
> system.
>
> As we can see on https://trends.debian.net/#build-systems a majority of
> packages alre
On Mon, 13 May 2019 22:22:32 +0300, Adrian Bunk wrote:
> In my experience, keeping existing packages at exotic build systems or
> ancient dh compat levels causes fewer problems than people trying to
> change that just for the sake of it.
In my experience ancient debian/rules runes are also a ca
Quoting Sam Hartman (2019-05-13 21:49:20)
> > "Holger" == Holger Levsen writes:
> Holger> On Mon, May 13, 2019 at 03:37:55PM -0400, Sam Hartman wrote:
> Bernd> gcc also needs a compiler to build - so I think it should be
> Bernd> safe to allow debhelper to build its package using
>
On 5/13/19 6:28 PM, Sam Hartman wrote:
>> "Thomas" == Thomas Goirand writes:
>
> Thomas> Now, I have another example, which is quite the opposite one
> Thomas> of what you gave as example:
>
> Thomas>
> https://salsa.debian.org/openstack-team/debian/openstack-debian-images/blob/
On 2019-05-13 17:58:47, Thomas Goirand wrote:
> On 5/13/19 3:57 PM, Marco d'Itri wrote:
> > On May 13, Sam Hartman wrote:
> >
> >> As promised, I'd like to start a discussion on whether we want to
> >> recommend using the dh command from debhelper as our preferred build
> >> system.
> > I have al
Hello all,
In a recent thread there were several requests for a dgit FAQ.
This now exists: https://wiki.debian.org/DgitFAQ
--
Sean Whitton
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
Hello,
On Mon 13 May 2019 at 11:32AM +00, Holger Levsen wrote:
> so there is "#928172 debian-security-support: fails to upgrade from 'testing':
> dpkg: error: error executing hook" which happens when base-files is upgraded
> before debian-security-support (but doesnt happen if d-s-s is upgraded
Hello,
On Mon 13 May 2019 at 11:52AM +00, Holger Levsen wrote:
> [re-sent with debian-release list address corrected...]
Also resending. Sorry.
> so there is "#928172 debian-security-support: fails to upgrade from 'testing':
> dpkg: error: error executing hook" which happens when base-files is
Hello Sam,
On Mon 13 May 2019 at 12:22PM -04, Sam Hartman wrote:
>> "Holger" == Holger Levsen writes:
> Holger> - packages using cdbs. cdbs has features dh doesnt have and
> Holger> I dont think it's wrong to use cdbs. (
>
> Just for my information, what are the big features cdbs has
Hello,
On Mon 13 May 2019 at 04:32PM -04, Scott Kitterman wrote:
> I think for new packages (with the exception of new packages maintained in a
> team that has a different pattern), it's not unreasonable. When starting from
> scratch, dh is almost certainly no harder and usually easier than trad
Sean Whitton writes:
> This now exists: https://wiki.debian.org/DgitFAQ
Thank you.
One issue I noticed:
git-buildpackage and git-dpm users are fully supported […]
That seems to contradict earlier statements that “separate
Debian-packaging-only repository” workflow (which is supported by
G
Hi,
On Mon, May 13, 2019 at 08:33:44AM -0400, Sam Hartman wrote:
> I'd like to call out one specific thing from Andreas's quote and the
> general argument. It's the belief that we've reached a point where in
> some cases uniformity is more important than maintainer preference.
I second this.
Wi
Sean Whitton:
> Hello,
>
> On Mon 13 May 2019 at 11:52AM +00, Holger Levsen wrote:
>
>> [re-sent with debian-release list address corrected...]
>
> Also resending. Sorry.
>
>> so there is "#928172 debian-security-support: fails to upgrade from
>> 'testing':
>> dpkg: error: error executing hoo
On Mon, May 13, 2019 at 8:34 PM Sam Hartman wrote:
> As promised, I'd like to start a discussion on whether we want to
> recommend using the dh command from debhelper as our preferred build
> system.
This is already the case AFAICT.
> But I think what we're really talking about is whether mainta
On 5/13/19 11:42 PM, Iustin Pop wrote:
> Very side note: why is that package a binary package instead of
> arch-indep, if it contains only a man page?
Not only a man page, but a shell script that either creates a Qcow2
image for OpenStack or installs Debian on bare-metal.
With the way it works, i
48 matches
Mail list logo
