Re: change proposal for handling of Depends: field in task files

[Andreas Tille]

On Thu, Aug 10, 2017 at 02:33:49PM +0200, Petter Reinholdtsen wrote:
> 
> > This additional line even works if the URL is not valid yet -- but gives
> > us some additional pressure to create an up-do-date format description
> > (which is IMO not the worst thing).
> 
> I guess what Andreas really is wondering about is who is going to do the
> work, not how hard it would be. :) I agree that it sound fairly easy to
> do, but it is unlikely that I will find time to do it myself any time
> soon. :(

Thanks for reading my mind.  I can perfectly add the Recommends and by
doing so let my local debian-med clone work again before pushing it.
I just want to avoid a race condition.  I will not do it before tomorrow
11:00 Montreal local time but afterwards I'll work on a new version
accepting Recommends.
 
> > So, what about
> >
> > Format: https://blends.debian.org/doc/0.7/tasksformat.html
> >
> > (blends-doc has currently version 0.6.98; 0.7 would be the logical
> > next step)
> 
> I believe it is a good idea to not link the format version and the
> package version, and would suggest to either start with a version number
> 0 or 1 for the format.  Locking the two together would give us an
> incetive to not change the version number of the package without making
> large changes to the task format, which seem like a bad idea to me.
> 
> Also, I believe the version number should be at the end of the URL, to
> make it obvious that it is possible to get a list all versions by
> removing the last part.

+1
 
> What about something like
> 'Format: https://blends.debian.org/doc/tasksformat/0/' instead?  Or
> perhaps version '0 is the old moving target, and version '1' is the
> first one we document?

I'd vote for using version '1' for the first we document.

Regarding the package version.  The idea to stick to 0.6.x was that

ssh://git.debian.org/git/blends/blends-gsoc.git

is starting with 0.7.  Since this never went into production (but
should) there is no point in reserving the 0.7 minor version.  The
Python rewrite which uses UDD and is *way* better since the old Perl
stuff should be somehow pushed for buster.  It simply needs more
testing.  I wonder who is aware of this - may be I should make some
summary.  The main point is that we get architecture dependant
metapackages.  Strictly speaking all our non amd64 metapackages are
wrong since we have usually not all dependencies available on other
architectures.  That's finally the reason why my motivation to keep
on working on the old blends-dev package is very limited but I never
found the time to push the rewritten code into production.  Everybody
is welcome to check it out.  (If I remember correctly it also
respects Recommends ...)

Kind regards

   Andreas.

-- 
http://fam-tille.de

Re: change proposal for handling of Depends: field in task files

[Petter Reinholdtsen]

[Ole Streicher]
> Sorry, I don't see the big problem here: The first step is anyway just
> to extend blends-dev to accept "Recommends" aside of "Depends", which
> should be simply enough. Then, the only disagreement is that I propose
> to have a required Format: line in the tasks header; this should be
> trivial enough as well (as long as we agree on the URL itself).
>
> This additional line even works if the URL is not valid yet -- but gives
> us some additional pressure to create an up-do-date format description
> (which is IMO not the worst thing).

I guess what Andreas really is wondering about is who is going to do the
work, not how hard it would be. :) I agree that it sound fairly easy to
do, but it is unlikely that I will find time to do it myself any time
soon. :(

> So, what about
>
> Format: https://blends.debian.org/doc/0.7/tasksformat.html
>
> (blends-doc has currently version 0.6.98; 0.7 would be the logical
> next step)

I believe it is a good idea to not link the format version and the
package version, and would suggest to either start with a version number
0 or 1 for the format.  Locking the two together would give us an
incetive to not change the version number of the package without making
large changes to the task format, which seem like a bad idea to me.

Also, I believe the version number should be at the end of the URL, to
make it obvious that it is possible to get a list all versions by
removing the last part.

What about something like
'Format: https://blends.debian.org/doc/tasksformat/0/' instead?  Or
perhaps version '0 is the old moving target, and version '1' is the
first one we document?

-- 
Happy hacking
Petter Reinholdtsen

Re: change proposal for handling of Depends: field in task files

[Ole Streicher]

Andreas Tille  writes:
> On Tue, Aug 08, 2017 at 09:04:56PM +0200, Ole Streicher wrote:
>> Mike Gabriel  writes:
>> > Is anyone here maintaining blend packages that have not been uploaded
>> > to Debian? If so, please speak up.
>> 
>> My point was here: If we introduce a format identifier (like an URL), we
>> can very simply test for it and exit with error if it is the wrong one.
>> 
>> The required changes in the tasks are trivial, so there would be no need
>> to support more than the "new" format. Anyone who did not get the bang
>> can just change it then.
>
> I wonder if all this format discussion might keep us away to continue
> with the simple solution to just do it and break things that are
> outside.  IMHO it should not stop our progress if outside people are
> using things that are intended for inside.  I would be very happy if
> some of the perl programmers would do that supposedly simple change and
> we could continue with interesting things.

Sorry, I don't see the big problem here: The first step is anyway just
to extend blends-dev to accept "Recommends" aside of "Depends", which
should be simply enough. Then, the only disagreement is that I propose
to have a required Format: line in the tasks header; this should be
trivial enough as well (as long as we agree on the URL itself).

This additional line even works if the URL is not valid yet -- but gives
us some additional pressure to create an up-do-date format description
(which is IMO not the worst thing).

So, what about

Format: https://blends.debian.org/doc/0.7/tasksformat.html

(blends-doc has currently version 0.6.98; 0.7 would be the logical next
step)

Best

Ole

Re: change proposal for handling of Depends: field in task files

[Andreas Tille]

Hi,

On Tue, Aug 08, 2017 at 09:04:56PM +0200, Ole Streicher wrote:
> Mike Gabriel  writes:
> > Is anyone here maintaining blend packages that have not been uploaded
> > to Debian? If so, please speak up.
> 
> My point was here: If we introduce a format identifier (like an URL), we
> can very simply test for it and exit with error if it is the wrong one.
> 
> The required changes in the tasks are trivial, so there would be no need
> to support more than the "new" format. Anyone who did not get the bang
> can just change it then.

I wonder if all this format discussion might keep us away to continue
with the simple solution to just do it and break things that are
outside.  IMHO it should not stop our progress if outside people are
using things that are intended for inside.  I would be very happy if
some of the perl programmers would do that supposedly simple change and
we could continue with interesting things.

Kind regards

  Andreas.

-- 
http://fam-tille.de