Sam Hartman writes:
> However, I think it is essential that we spend significant time figuring
> out how we can do better with future upgrades and decision processes,
> possibly at a point where we have enough distance that we can hear each
> other without anger, while not so much distance that
> "Matthew" == Matthew Vernon writes:
Matthew> This continues to make me worry we are not on the path of
Matthew> robust engineering. But I appreciate I'm in a very small
Matthew> minority in that regard.
I want to second the above.
I do still believe that the way forward is
On Mon, Feb 19, 2024 at 09:53:20AM +, Matthew Vernon wrote:
> On 12/01/2024 12:31, Helmut Grohne wrote:
>
> > For the gzip case, we have the additional question whether we tolerate
> > the temporary policy violation for the trixie upgrade or halt the
> > /usr-move and retry with a modified
On Mon, Feb 19, 2024 at 09:48:00AM +, Matthew Vernon wrote:
> To check I have understood correctly: one may see loss of files when doing
> dpkg -i of a package where it Conflicts: with an installed package?
Unfortunately, this is real.
apt avoids this, because it recognizes that it can
Hi,
On 12/01/2024 12:31, Helmut Grohne wrote:
For the gzip case, we have the additional question whether we tolerate
the temporary policy violation for the trixie upgrade or halt the
/usr-move and retry with a modified dpkg (that could land in trixie, so
we could complete in forky).
What's
On 17/01/2024 14:07, Helmut Grohne wrote:
I somehow missed how Ben's libnfsidmap bug #1058937 works slightly
simpler. Given that $second has a conflict with the installed version of
$first, one can skip that second step and instead install $second
directly with dpkg -i. So no, this weird
Hi Sam,
On Wed, Jan 17, 2024 at 09:33:25AM -0700, Sam Hartman wrote:
> I'd really like to understand why this is desired dpkg behavior.
I fear I have to defer to Guillem on this one. My rough understanding is
that we can minimize the window of time during which the files are
missing. Though
> "Helmut" == Helmut Grohne writes:
Helmut> Package: tech-ctte Given our discussion at the last CTTE
Helmut> meeting, I am turning my request for advice into a formal
Helmut> one.
Helmut> Most of the /usr-move that is happening via DEP17 seems to
Helmut> be working out,
On Fri, Jan 12, 2024 at 01:31:18PM +0100, Helmut Grohne wrote:
> The relevant situation is not entirely trivial to construct:
>
> * Package $first contains an aliased file $file and this is moved to
>package $second in an update.
>OR
>Package $first diverts aliased location $file
Package: tech-ctte
Given our discussion at the last CTTE meeting, I am turning my request
for advice into a formal one.
Most of the /usr-move that is happening via DEP17 seems to be working
out, but the effects of Conflicts raise the question of what kinds of
interactions with a package manager
10 matches
Mail list logo
