Bug#90511: marked as done ([proposal] disallow multi-distribution uploads)

Your message dated Thu, 22 Mar 2001 02:30:25 -0500 with message-id <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> and subject line Bug#90511: proposal] addressing objections (re: disallow multi-distribution uploads) has caused the attached Bug report to be marked as done. This means that you claim that the problem has bee

Processed: whoops

Processing commands for [EMAIL PROTECTED]: > reopen 90511 Bug#90511: [proposal] disallow multi-distribution uploads Bug reopened, originator not changed. > thanks Stopping processing here. Please contact me if you need assistance. Darren Benham (administrator, Debian Bugs database)

Bug#90511: proposal] addressing objections (re: disallow multi-distribution uploads)

On Wed, Mar 21, 2001 at 09:23:08PM -0500, Ben Collins wrote: > On Thu, Mar 22, 2001 at 12:42:57PM +1100, Herbert Xu wrote: > > > Any libraries which change the ABI without changing the soname is buggy, > > period. > > Agreed. However, uploading to "stable unstable" is not the correct nor > intende

Bug#90511: proposal] disallow multi-distribution uploads

Marcus Brinkmann <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > IMHO, the fundamental and unavoidable reason why we have this problem > is the following: > We don't know in which Packages files (=distributions) a > single binary is (used or) going to be used. Perhaps I'm missing something, but I thought the wh

Bug#90511: proposal] addressing objections (re: disallow multi-distribution uploads)

On Wed, 21 Mar 2001, Ben Collins wrote: > On Thu, Mar 22, 2001 at 12:11:43AM +0100, Santiago Vila wrote: > > > > If there is need of a technical reason here, we need a technical > > reason to forbid legitimate uploads, which is (one of the things) your > > proposal would do. > > What is a legitima

Bug#90511: proposal] disallow multi-distribution uploads

On Thu, Mar 22, 2001 at 09:00:02PM +1100, Herbert Xu wrote: > Marcus Brinkmann <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > IMHO, the fundamental and unavoidable reason why we have this problem > > is the following: > > > We don't know in which Packages files (=distributions) a > > single binary is (used

Bug#90287: PROPOSAL] require the use of $MAIL

Brian May schrieb: > > "Manoj" == Manoj Srivastava <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > >>> The mail spool is $MAIL with a fallback to > >>> /var/spool/mail. The interface to send a mail message is > >>> /usr/sbin/sendmail (as per the FHS). The mail spool is part of > >>> the base s

Bug#90511: proposal] addressing objections (re: disallow multi-distribution uploads)

> > Your proposal is exactly like throwing the bash with the baby (sorry, don't > remember the exact wording). > It's "throwing out the baby with the bath water" :) And you are probably right. Some of Manoj's points are setting in. The only thing is that this requires a lot of checking on dinst

Bug#90511: proposal] disallow multi-distribution uploads

On Wed, Mar 21, 2001 at 12:45:31PM -0500, Ben Collins wrote: > - frozen > + testing I don't think any conclusion has yet been reached about whether or not we will have some sort of frozen distro during the freeze. So I'm unsure whether we should make this change as sug

Bug#90511: proposal] addressing objections (re: disallow multi-distribution uploads)

On Wed, Mar 21, 2001 at 01:13:17PM -0500, Ben Collins wrote: > no reason for it. In fact, the only technical reason was back when we > had frozen/unstable uploads, and they do not occur any longer. We have yet to see what a freeze in the new setup actually looks like. It has been discussed, but n

Bug#89473: PROPOSAL] dpkg-statoverride and Conflicts: suidmanager (<< 0.50)

>>"Ben" == Ben Gertzfield <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > "Wichert" == Wichert Akkerman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: Wichert> Policy should set guidelines for making packages [...] Wichert> The less details, the better. Ben> Um. Policy *IS* the guide for making packages now. There's no Be

Bug#90511: proposal] disallow multi-distribution uploads

Hi, Looking at the original bug report, the history section seems to detail implementation flaws in buildd's and dinstall, and the major motivation for this proposal seems to ber a workaround for the shortcomings of the dinstall+buildd system. I think this motivation is bogus, we shoul

Bug#90511: proposal] addressing objections (re: disallow multi-distribution uploads)

>>"Ben" == Ben Collins <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: Ben> What is a legitimate reason for uploading to stable/unstable other than Ben> convience? I see none. Is there a reason for policy to disallow convenience (incidentally, what reason is there to use helper packages other than conven

Bug#90511: proposal] addressing objections (re: disallow multi-distribution uploads)

>>"Ben" == Ben Collins <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: Ben> Yes it does help. By allowing stable/unstable uploads, we implicitly Ben> allow maintainers to do something potentially harmful and with almost Ben> zero technical gain. By disallowing it, we raise awareness that it is Ben> most commonly

Bug#90511: proposal] addressing objections (re: disallow multi-distribution uploads)

>>"Ben" == Ben Collins <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: Ben> The only objections I have seen are simplified by "it is too difficult Ben> to for that one maintainers" and "it should be possible to do this for Ben> packages that do not break". You now have wnother one: There is little technic

Bug#87711: PROPOSAL] Clarification of example configuration files

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hi, I second this proposal. manoj - -- If I told you you had a beautiful body, would you hold it against me? Manoj Srivastava <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 1024R/C7261095 print CB D9 F4 12 68 07 E4 05 CC 2D 27 12

Bug#90511: proposal] addressing objections (re: disallow multi-distribution uploads)

On Thu, Mar 22, 2001 at 08:23:20AM -0600, Manoj Srivastava wrote: > No, you have outlined problems in dinstall and the buildd > process. There is inherently no reason not to have multiple versions > of a package in the same distribution using package pools, apart from > the current impleme

Bug#90511: new-proposal] (was disallow multi-distribution uploads)

I'm pondering a new angle to this. Perhaps we don't even need to mess with dinstall. What would really suffice is a check in the testing scripts that disallows anything moving from unstable to testing if it depends on something marked obsolete. This could be anything in oldlibs, and special overri

Bug#90511: proposal] addressing objections (re: disallow multi-distribution uploads)

>>"Marcus" == Marcus Brinkmann <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: Marcus> Are you sure you wanted to say "multiple versions of a Marcus> package in the same distribution"? In my opinion, "one Marcus> version of a package in multiple distributions" fits better Marcus> in the context. Marcus> If the

Bug#90511: proposal] addressing objections (re: disallow multi-distribution uploads)

On Thu, Mar 22, 2001 at 10:44:17AM -0600, Manoj Srivastava wrote: > >> There is not technical reason > >> for not building uploads to stable unstable twice in buildd either. > > Marcus> I think this is not true. What is meant by this? It means > Marcus> building the same package twice, with t

Bug#90511: proposal] addressing objections (re: disallow multi-distribution uploads)

On Thu, Mar 22, 2001 at 06:16:43PM +0100, Marcus Brinkmann wrote: > On Thu, Mar 22, 2001 at 10:44:17AM -0600, Manoj Srivastava wrote: > > > > The stable package need not go into the package pool. Am I > > mistaken in assuming that proposed updates packages are not in the > > package pool? If

Bug#90511: new-proposal] (was disallow multi-distribution uploads)

On 22-Mar-01, 10:28 (CST), Ben Collins <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I'm pondering a new angle to this. Perhaps we don't even need to mess > with dinstall. What would really suffice is a check in the testing > scripts that disallows anything moving from unstable to testing if it > depends on someth

Bug#90511: proposal] addressing objections (re: disallow multi-distribution uploads)

>> Ben Collins <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > Yes, proposed updates do go into the pool. Interesting. Which Packages file points to them? Certainly not stable's (at least not for a while), certainly not unstable's (not permanently, at least), and would think neither testing's. What's left?

Bug#90511: proposal] addressing objections (re: disallow multi-distribution uploads)

On Thu, Mar 22, 2001 at 08:14:13PM +0100, Marcelo E. Magallon wrote: > >> Ben Collins <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > > Yes, proposed updates do go into the pool. > > Interesting. Which Packages file points to them? Certainly not > stable's (at least not for a while), certainly not unstable'

Bug#89473: PROPOSAL] dpkg-statoverride and Conflicts: suidmanager (<< 0.50)

> "Manoj" == Manoj Srivastava <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: Manoj> I disagree. Developers reference still exists, and so Manoj> does the packaging manual. The packaging manual is merely Manoj> no longer policy. There is no link to the packaging manual from w.d.o/devel and there

Bug#90511: proposal] addressing objections (re: disallow multi-distribution uploads)

"Marcelo E. Magallon" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > >> Ben Collins <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > > Yes, proposed updates do go into the pool. > > Interesting. Which Packages file points to them? Certainly not > stable's (at least not for a while), certainly not unstable's (not > permanen

Bug#90511: proposal] disallow multi-distribution uploads

On Tue, Mar 20, 2001 at 11:06:02PM -0500, Ben Collins wrote: > Policy should disallow uploads for multiple distributions. Specifically > this means same version uploads to "stable unstable". What if instead of doing it like this, we made an effort to make it *more* convenient, rather than less? S