On Mon, 2015-10-12 at 15:38 +0300, Arto Jantunen wrote: > "Adam D. Barratt" <[email protected]> writes: > > > On 2015-10-12 13:13, Arto Jantunen wrote: > >> "Adam D. Barratt" <[email protected]> writes: > >> > >>> Control: tags -1 + moreinfo > >>> > >>> On Sat, 2015-10-10 at 09:43 +0300, Arto Jantunen wrote: > >>>> I would like to update bcfg2 in stable to match the version currently in > >>>> testing to enable it to work with Django 1.7 (bug #755645). To do this I > >>>> would > >>>> add the attached patch, which looks much worse than it is due to the db > >>>> migration files being moved around. > >>> > >>> That is rather noisy, yes. :-( > >>> > >>> Is there any chance we could have an interdiff of the before-and-after > >>> patches, to highlight the actual differences between them? In any case > >>> we'd need a full debdiff of a package built and tested on jessie before > >>> giving a definite ack. > >> > >> The patch doesn't exist in jessie, so either interdiff isn't possible or > >> I'm misunderstanding something. > > > > The latter, although possibly because I wasn't clear enough. > > > > The patch contains, for example: > > > > src/lib/Bcfg2/Reporting/migrations/0001_initial.py | 1006 > > +++++++++++--------- > > .../migrations/0002_convert_perms_to_mode.py | 171 ---- > > .../Reporting/south_migrations/0001_initial.py | 465 +++++++++ > > .../south_migrations/0002_convert_perms_to_mode.py | 171 ++++ > > > > What I was looking for was an indication of what the actual difference > > between > > the two sets of files is, ignoring renames (e.g. are the two > > 0002_convert_perms_to_mode.py files actually exactly the same?). > > > >> The debdiff is attached (for convenience > >> built on jessie but without modifying the version number for a stable > >> update). > > > > Sorry, I meant a _source_ debdiff (in practice, that's basically always > > what's > > needed). > > > > On the subject of the binary debdiff however... > > > > Files in first set of .debs but not in second > > --------------------------------------------- > > -rw-r--r-- root/root > > /usr/lib/python2.7/dist-packages/Bcfg2/Reporting/migrations/0002_convert_perms_to_mode.py > > -rw-r--r-- root/root > > /usr/lib/python2.7/dist-packages/Bcfg2/Reporting/migrations/0003_expand_hash_key.py > > -rw-r--r-- root/root > > /usr/lib/python2.7/dist-packages/Bcfg2/Reporting/migrations/0004_profile_can_be_null.py > > -rw-r--r-- root/root > > /usr/lib/python2.7/dist-packages/Bcfg2/Reporting/migrations/0005_add_selinux_entry_support.py > > -rw-r--r-- root/root > > /usr/lib/python2.7/dist-packages/Bcfg2/Reporting/migrations/0006_add_user_group_entry_support.py > > > > Shouldn't there be a corresponding set of files appearing in the second > > package? (in /Reporting/south_migrations) > > I don't know the answer to that question, my understanding of Django is > rather limited (which is also why I didn't write the patch to do > this). The "initial migration" file grows quite a bit, so it's entirely > possible that it ends up containing the relevant parts of those, but > this is only a theory.
My understanding of Django is likely less than yours, it just seems odd to have the patch create the new files and then for them not to be shipped. > Source debdiff is attached, How was that generated? It appears to be missing at least debian/changelog. Regards, Adam
