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
On Mon, May 24, 2010 at 5:05 AM, Raphael Hertzog hert...@debian.org 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
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 query on
On Thu, 27 May 2010 21:36:17 +0200, Jean-Christophe Dubacq
jcduba...@free.fr 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
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 exercise
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 choice
On 2010-05-26, Holger Levsen hol...@layer-acht.org 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
On Thu, 27 May 2010 00:16:01 +0200
Emilio Pozuelo Monfort po...@debian.org 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
On Wed, 26 May 2010 23:44:52 +0200
Iustin Pop iu...@k1024.org 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
On Thu, 27 May 2010 06:11:36 + (UTC)
Philipp Kern tr...@philkern.de wrote:
On 2010-05-26, Holger Levsen hol...@layer-acht.org 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
On 2010-05-27, Neil Williams codeh...@debian.org 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
On Thu, May 27, 2010 at 07:54:03AM +0100, Neil Williams wrote:
On Wed, 26 May 2010 23:44:52 +0200
Iustin Pop iu...@k1024.org 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
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, 27 May 2010 09:12:24 +0200
Iustin Pop iu...@k1024.org 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
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
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 Zeimetz
Hi!
* Philipp Kern tr...@philkern.de [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
* Philipp Kern tr...@philkern.de [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
Hi!
* Raphael Hertzog hert...@debian.org [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
On Thu, May 27, 2010 at 11:26:02AM +0200, Gerfried Fuchs wrote:
Hi!
* Philipp Kern tr...@philkern.de [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)
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.
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 start
On Thu, 27 May 2010, Gerfried Fuchs wrote:
* Philipp Kern tr...@philkern.de [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)
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 to 3.0. By
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 tr...@philkern.de [2010-05-27 08:11:36 CEST]:
| As far as I understood it, it's not that much about unpacking, because
| the format is
]] 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 is
* 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
found
* Carsten Hey cars...@debian.org [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:
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-source:
* Gerfried Fuchs rho...@deb.at [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.
[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 is
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
]] 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
| |
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
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,
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
Joey,
first of all thanks for the data... :)
On 2010-05-27, Joey Hess jo...@debian.org 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
On Wed, May 26, 2010 at 10:34:32PM +0100, Neil Williams wrote:
On Wed, 26 May 2010 22:59:25 +0200
Iustin Pop iu...@k1024.org 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
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
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 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 value
On 2010-05-26, Bernd Zeimetz be...@bzed.de 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
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 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-buildflags that
On Wed, 26 May 2010 22:59:25 +0200
Iustin Pop iu...@k1024.org 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
On Wed, May 26, 2010 at 10:34:32PM +0100, Neil Williams wrote:
On Wed, 26 May 2010 22:59:25 +0200
Iustin Pop iu...@k1024.org 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
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 lintian tag.
47 matches
Mail list logo
