Hi,
On Sun, 24 Feb 2008, Ian Jackson wrote:
Raphael Hertzog writes (Re: dpkg-buildpackage now reorganizing
debian/control Dependsfield??):
I won't revert anything unless you come up with some proof that this
causes severe issues that will disturb the lenny release process.
I
Raphael Hertzog [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
2/ Otavio was sort of acknowledging it as a good thing but a good thing
that should be delayed for an unknown amount of time waiting for a fix on
apt's side while the lack of fix didn't seem to create important problems
Under those conditions, I tend
Raphael Hertzog writes (Re: dpkg-buildpackage now reorganizing debian/control
Depends field??):
I won't revert anything unless you come up with some proof that this
causes severe issues that will disturb the lenny release process.
I think this is the wrong approach.
Surely you should revert
David Paleino [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Il giorno Fri, 22 Feb 2008 10:04:52 -0300
Otavio Salvador [EMAIL PROTECTED] ha scritto:
As I said, for APT, the order has meaning _always_.
apt-get install foo bar
Is completely different of
apt-get install bar foo
On ven, 2008-02-22 at 21:55 +0100, Raphael Hertzog wrote:
On Fri, 22 Feb 2008, Mike Bird wrote:
What please is the benefit of unnecessarily reordering dependencies
and leaving everyone on tenterhooks as to whether it will change
installation outcomes? (If this has already been explained I
On Fri, 22 Feb 2008, Daniel Burrows wrote:
On Fri, Feb 22, 2008 at 08:50:37PM +0100, Raphael Hertzog [EMAIL PROTECTED]
was heard to say:
No, Sergei is right. The order of packages within ${shlibs:Depends} is not
defined, you're not completely avoiding the problem by reverting the
change.
On Fri, Feb 22, 2008, Raphael Hertzog wrote:
2/ debdiff uses wdiff to show changes on field values and wdiff gives
spurious differences if the sole difference between both values is
a different order. Thus debdiff output is more useful with ordered Depends
fields.
(Probably stating the
On Fri, Feb 22, 2008 at 06:23:28PM -0800, Daniel Burrows wrote:
Would it be possible to only re-order elements that were introduced by
a variable substitution? That would make the list deterministic without
changing what the maintainer wrote.
At best you could:
(a) sort substvar
Hi,
On Thu, 21 Feb 2008, Kevin B. McCarty wrote:
I've just noticed that packages I've built recently have had the list of
Depends reorganized into ASCIIbetical order in the generated binary
.debs. I guess this was the next logical step after having dpkg-dev
re-order Build-Depends internally
On Fr, 22 Feb 2008, Raphael Hertzog wrote:
I can understand it might change the list of packages pulled, but both set
are supposed to work since that what dependencies are expressing. If you
I disagree. Sometimes alternatives are something we put in to help
transition. We have
...
On Fri, 22 Feb 2008, Norbert Preining wrote:
On Fr, 22 Feb 2008, Raphael Hertzog wrote:
I can understand it might change the list of packages pulled, but both set
are supposed to work since that what dependencies are expressing. If you
I disagree. Sometimes alternatives are something we
Raphael Hertzog [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Fri, 22 Feb 2008, Otavio Salvador wrote:
Please, revert this change.
No. I don't see any good reason for that:
1/ I have yet to see a major breakage due to that, the worst has
been changed dependencies on a built package due to choices of other
On 2/22/08, Otavio Salvador [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
As I said, for APT, the order has meaning _always_.
apt-get install foo bar
Is completely different of
apt-get install bar foo
Then having a unique, well-defined order of packages in Depends is a
good idea. If packages aren't sorted
Il giorno Fri, 22 Feb 2008 10:04:52 -0300
Otavio Salvador [EMAIL PROTECTED] ha scritto:
As I said, for APT, the order has meaning _always_.
apt-get install foo bar
Is completely different of
apt-get install bar foo
Could you please elaborate on this? I know for sure that Pre-Depends
On Fri, Feb 22, 2008 at 02:54:20PM +0100, David Paleino wrote:
Il giorno Fri, 22 Feb 2008 10:04:52 -0300
Otavio Salvador [EMAIL PROTECTED] ha scritto:
As I said, for APT, the order has meaning _always_.
apt-get install foo bar
Is completely different of
apt-get install bar
Sergei Golovan [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On 2/22/08, Otavio Salvador [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
As I said, for APT, the order has meaning _always_.
apt-get install foo bar
Is completely different of
apt-get install bar foo
Then having a unique, well-defined order of packages in
On Fri, Feb 22, 2008 at 02:54:20PM +0100, David Paleino [EMAIL PROTECTED] was
heard to say:
Il giorno Fri, 22 Feb 2008 10:04:52 -0300
Otavio Salvador [EMAIL PROTECTED] ha scritto:
As I said, for APT, the order has meaning _always_.
apt-get install foo bar
Is completely different
Il giorno Fri, 22 Feb 2008 15:30:48 +0100
Michael Koch [EMAIL PROTECTED] ha scritto:
On Fri, Feb 22, 2008 at 02:54:20PM +0100, David Paleino wrote:
Il giorno Fri, 22 Feb 2008 10:04:52 -0300
Otavio Salvador [EMAIL PROTECTED] ha scritto:
As I said, for APT, the order has meaning
Hi,
first let me apologize to Norbert that my original email was unclear: it
is indeed true, as Raphael notes, that dpkg-deb (or whatever) is NOT
changing the order of individual packages within an OR'ed set, only of
the packages (or OR'ed sets of packages) separated by commas.
Raphael Hertzog
Minor correction for my example 2:
Kevin B. McCarty wrote:
Note that liblapack.so.3 (both
versions) requires libblas.so.3; but liblapack.so.3 from lapack3 can use
either version of libblas, while liblapack.so.3 from atlas3-base needs
the libblas.so.3 from atlas3-base-dev.
On Fri, 22 Feb 2008, Otavio Salvador wrote:
Sergei Golovan [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Then having a unique, well-defined order of packages in Depends is a
good idea. If packages aren't sorted their order is undefined (not all
of the dependencies are added by hands, many of them come from
On Fri February 22 2008 11:50:37 Raphael Hertzog wrote:
On Fri, 22 Feb 2008, Otavio Salvador wrote:
As I said, it's a know issue and we need to fix it however it would be
nice to not get the problem worse changing the package dependencies
ordering at build time, at least for now.
I won't
On Fri, Feb 22, 2008 at 05:49:32PM +0100, David Paleino wrote:
Il giorno Fri, 22 Feb 2008 15:30:48 +0100
Michael Koch [EMAIL PROTECTED] ha scritto:
On Fri, Feb 22, 2008 at 02:54:20PM +0100, David Paleino wrote:
Il giorno Fri, 22 Feb 2008 10:04:52 -0300
Otavio Salvador [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Hi,
On Fri, 22 Feb 2008, Mike Bird wrote:
I won't revert anything unless you come up with some proof that this
causes severe issues that will disturb the lenny release process.
Raphael,
What please is the benefit of unnecessarily reordering dependencies
and leaving everyone on
On Fri, Feb 22, 2008 at 09:55:31PM +0100, Raphael Hertzog wrote:
On Fri, 22 Feb 2008, Mike Bird wrote:
I won't revert anything unless you come up with some proof that this
causes severe issues that will disturb the lenny release process.
Raphael,
What please is the benefit of
Raphael Hertzog writes (Re: dpkg-buildpackage now reorganizing debian/control
Depends field??):
You're speaking of something that you have not understood. The order
of packages listed in an OR has not changed... I am (of course) aware
that the order has a meaning in that case.
The point
On Fri February 22 2008 12:55:31 Raphael Hertzog wrote:
What please is the benefit of unnecessarily reordering dependencies
and leaving everyone on tenterhooks as to whether it will change
installation outcomes? (If this has already been explained I apologize
for overlooking it.)
1/
Raphael Hertzog wrote:
On Fri, 22 Feb 2008, Mike Bird wrote:
Raphael,
What please is the benefit of unnecessarily reordering dependencies
and leaving everyone on tenterhooks as to whether it will change
installation outcomes? (If this has already been explained I apologize
for
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Raphael Hertzog wrote:
On Thu, 21 Feb 2008, Kevin B. McCarty wrote:
In some cases, particularly when the Depends can be satisfied by
different sets of alternatives, this change could have the effect of
changing the packages actually pulled in by
On Fri, Feb 22, 2008 at 08:50:37PM +0100, Raphael Hertzog [EMAIL PROTECTED]
was heard to say:
On Fri, 22 Feb 2008, Otavio Salvador wrote:
Sergei Golovan [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Then having a unique, well-defined order of packages in Depends is a
good idea. If packages aren't sorted
On 23/02/2008, Colin Tuckley wrote:
In the gFortran transition we have come across some cases where this
happens, depending on the order specified for depends you either get a
specialist (requested) package, or if you don't care which maths lib for
example is used by the package then you
Hi dpkg maintainers, developers,
(Please follow up only to [EMAIL PROTECTED])
I've just noticed that packages I've built recently have had the list of
Depends reorganized into ASCIIbetical order in the generated binary
.debs. I guess this was the next logical step after having dpkg-dev
re-order
Kevin B. McCarty [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
In some cases, particularly when the Depends can be satisfied by
different sets of alternatives, this change could have the effect of
changing the packages actually pulled in by apt-get or aptitude. I will
be happy to post a couple such examples --
33 matches
Mail list logo
