Bug#639972: apt-listbugs: Depends on a few of transitional packages
On 04/09/11 at 16:25 -0700, Ryan Niebur wrote: Hi Francesco, On Sun, Sep 04, 2011 at 11:53:59PM +0200, Francesco Poli wrote: I've uploaded a new version of dpkg-ruby, so libdpkg-ruby1.8 can be replaced by dpkg-ruby (= 3.7.7). Hi Ryan! Shouldn't it be ruby-dpkg, rather than dpkg-ruby, according to the new Ruby Debian package naming scheme? Yeah, I debated a bit about this. There was already the package dpkg-ruby, containing the scripts dpkg-ruby and dpkg-checkdeps. I assume that these are used by some people because popcon says there are 141 installs (and this is all that was in that package before). I considered the options of having a dpkg-ruby package, a ruby-dpkg package, or both. It seemed confusing to move the tool named dpkg-ruby to a package named ruby-dpkg, and it also seemed confusing to have both a dpkg-ruby and ruby-dpkg package, so I left it as dpkg-ruby. Anyways, I'm open to changing this decision if people agree that I made the wrong one. I expected that I could have. I think that it's better to switch to the new standard naming scheme and get rid of all alternative naming schemes. Please introduce a transitional package. Lucas -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-bugs-dist-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Bug#639972: apt-listbugs: Depends on a few of transitional packages
On Mon, Sep 05, 2011 at 07:43:03AM +0200, Lucas Nussbaum wrote: On 04/09/11 at 16:25 -0700, Ryan Niebur wrote: Hi Francesco, On Sun, Sep 04, 2011 at 11:53:59PM +0200, Francesco Poli wrote: I've uploaded a new version of dpkg-ruby, so libdpkg-ruby1.8 can be replaced by dpkg-ruby (= 3.7.7). Hi Ryan! Shouldn't it be ruby-dpkg, rather than dpkg-ruby, according to the new Ruby Debian package naming scheme? Yeah, I debated a bit about this. There was already the package dpkg-ruby, containing the scripts dpkg-ruby and dpkg-checkdeps. I assume that these are used by some people because popcon says there are 141 installs (and this is all that was in that package before). I considered the options of having a dpkg-ruby package, a ruby-dpkg package, or both. It seemed confusing to move the tool named dpkg-ruby to a package named ruby-dpkg, and it also seemed confusing to have both a dpkg-ruby and ruby-dpkg package, so I left it as dpkg-ruby. Anyways, I'm open to changing this decision if people agree that I made the wrong one. I expected that I could have. I think that it's better to switch to the new standard naming scheme and get rid of all alternative naming schemes. Please introduce a transitional package. That probably makes more sense since most of the users of this package are using it as a library apt-listbugs is using. Though I think it should be renamed to ruby-debian instead, since the library is all under the debian namespace. I'm guessing the original maintainer named it libdpkg-ruby to match the script's package name. I'll make this change. -- signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Bug#639972: apt-listbugs: Depends on a few of transitional packages
On 04/09/11 at 00:54 +0200, Francesco Poli wrote: On Sat, 3 Sep 2011 22:32:19 +0200 Lucas Nussbaum wrote: [...] Hi, Hi Lucas, thanks a lot for your kind reply! Do you know why those versioned deps were introduced? Well, actually, after digging into the git repository, I remembered that the versioned dependency was introduced by me for a previous transition... :-/ http://anonscm.debian.org/gitweb/?p=apt-listbugs/apt-listbugs.git;a=commitdiff;h=8da1d43065b8427abe52e4c93f9ee9dfe369f0ff In other words, in that occasion, I didn't think about people who could wish to backport apt-listbugs. So maybe, I could do the same now and update the version. On the other hand, keeping the old version as a useful indication for potential backporters looks like a good idea. In any case, using versioned deps is probably the safe solution here. Good, if what I discovered doesn't change the conclusion, I'll keep the versioned dependency. Please do. If you want to facilitate backports, maybe use something like: ruby-cmdparse2 (= X) | libcmdparse2-ruby (= X) Lucas -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-bugs-dist-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Bug#639972: apt-listbugs: Depends on a few of transitional packages
On 04.09.11 Lucas Nussbaum (lu...@lucas-nussbaum.net) wrote: On 04/09/11 at 00:54 +0200, Francesco Poli wrote: Hi, Good, if what I discovered doesn't change the conclusion, I'll keep the versioned dependency. Please do. If you want to facilitate backports, maybe use something like: ruby-cmdparse2 (= X) | libcmdparse2-ruby (= X) I don't think that backporting apt-listbugs to Debian stable is necessary as the # of RC bugs in stable doesn't vary. ;-) H. -- sigmentation fault -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-bugs-dist-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Bug#639972: apt-listbugs: Depends on a few of transitional packages
On Sun, 4 Sep 2011 12:17:04 +0200 Hilmar Preusse wrote: On 04.09.11 Lucas Nussbaum (lu...@lucas-nussbaum.net) wrote: [...] If you want to facilitate backports, maybe use something like: ruby-cmdparse2 (= X) | libcmdparse2-ruby (= X) I don't think that backporting apt-listbugs to Debian stable is necessary as the # of RC bugs in stable doesn't vary. ;-) Actually the number of RC bugs in Debian stable _does_ vary with time: see the blue line in http://bugs.debian.org/release-critical/ However, I agree that apt-listbugs does not seem to be too useful for Debian stable users. It is designed with Debian unstable (or testing) users in mind and it is indeed especially recommended for them. Nonetheless, believe it or not, I am aware of (at least) some users that run apt-listbugs on Debian stable boxes. One of them could try to backport a recent apt-listbugs to Debian stable, for his/her own needs (or even to upload it as official backport...). -- http://www.inventati.org/frx/frx-gpg-key-transition-2010.txt New GnuPG key, see the transition document! . Francesco Poli . GnuPG key fpr == CA01 1147 9CD2 EFDF FB82 3925 3E1C 27E1 1F69 BFFE pgp9zUM52hk8L.pgp Description: PGP signature
Bug#639972: apt-listbugs: Depends on a few of transitional packages
On Sun, 4 Sep 2011 08:16:48 +0200 Lucas Nussbaum wrote: On 04/09/11 at 00:54 +0200, Francesco Poli wrote: [...] Good, if what I discovered doesn't change the conclusion, I'll keep the versioned dependency. Please do. OK, thanks for confirming that it is recommendable. If you want to facilitate backports, maybe use something like: ruby-cmdparse2 (= X) | libcmdparse2-ruby (= X) I've just tried out this strategy: it works, but it has an important drawback. Let me explain. The current (sid) version of apt-listbugs is 0.1.5 : it depends on libxml-parser-ruby1.8 and on libhttpclient-ruby1.8 (= 2.1.5.2-1) . Let's call apt-listbugs/0.1.6~rc1 the modified version which depends on ruby-xmlparser and on ruby-httpclient (= 2.1.5.2-1) . Let's call apt-listbugs/0.1.6~rc2 the modified version which depends on ruby-xmlparser | libxml-parser-ruby1.8 and on ruby-httpclient (= 2.1.5.2-1) | libhttpclient-ruby1.8 (= 2.1.5.2-1) . Everything seems to work fine when installing apt-listbugs/0.1.6~rc1 or apt-listbugs/0.1.6~rc2 from scratch. But if I try to upgrade from apt-listbugs/0.1.5 to apt-listbugs/0.1.6~rc2 the transitional packages are not automatically removed (not even when no other package depends on or recommends them), since they are still satisfying a dependency. On the other hand, if I try to upgrade from apt-listbugs/0.1.5 to apt-listbugs/0.1.6~rc1, aptitude automatically removes the two transitional packages (as long as no other package depends on or recommends them), thus leaving users' systems in a cleaner state. Hence, I think it is better to convert Depends: libfoo-ruby1.8, libbar-ruby1.8 (= X) into Depends: ruby-foo, ruby-bar (= X) rather than using the alternative dependency trick. I hope my input may be useful. -- http://www.inventati.org/frx/frx-gpg-key-transition-2010.txt New GnuPG key, see the transition document! . Francesco Poli . GnuPG key fpr == CA01 1147 9CD2 EFDF FB82 3925 3E1C 27E1 1F69 BFFE pgpN4zJqHjfAd.pgp Description: PGP signature
Bug#639972: apt-listbugs: Depends on a few of transitional packages
On Thu, Sep 01, 2011 at 10:35:04AM +0200, Hilmar Preusse wrote: Package: apt-listbugs Version: 0.1.5 Severity: important Dear Maintainers, I just noticed that apt-listbugs depends on a few transitional packages. Please consider to correct these and to replace them by the correct depends: I've uploaded a new version of dpkg-ruby, so libdpkg-ruby1.8 can be replaced by dpkg-ruby (= 3.7.7). Cheers, Ryan signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Bug#639972: apt-listbugs: Depends on a few of transitional packages
On Sun, 4 Sep 2011 14:24:31 -0700 Ryan Niebur wrote: On Thu, Sep 01, 2011 at 10:35:04AM +0200, Hilmar Preusse wrote: Package: apt-listbugs Version: 0.1.5 Severity: important Dear Maintainers, I just noticed that apt-listbugs depends on a few transitional packages. Please consider to correct these and to replace them by the correct depends: I've uploaded a new version of dpkg-ruby, so libdpkg-ruby1.8 can be replaced by dpkg-ruby (= 3.7.7). Hi Ryan! Shouldn't it be ruby-dpkg, rather than dpkg-ruby, according to the new Ruby Debian package naming scheme? See http://wiki.debian.org/Teams/Ruby/Packaging?action=showredirect=Teams%2FRuby%2FRubyInWheezy#Naming_of_ruby_packages -- http://www.inventati.org/frx/frx-gpg-key-transition-2010.txt New GnuPG key, see the transition document! . Francesco Poli . GnuPG key fpr == CA01 1147 9CD2 EFDF FB82 3925 3E1C 27E1 1F69 BFFE pgp4CzB7OiEFU.pgp Description: PGP signature
Bug#639972: apt-listbugs: Depends on a few of transitional packages
Hi Francesco, On Sun, Sep 04, 2011 at 11:53:59PM +0200, Francesco Poli wrote: I've uploaded a new version of dpkg-ruby, so libdpkg-ruby1.8 can be replaced by dpkg-ruby (= 3.7.7). Hi Ryan! Shouldn't it be ruby-dpkg, rather than dpkg-ruby, according to the new Ruby Debian package naming scheme? Yeah, I debated a bit about this. There was already the package dpkg-ruby, containing the scripts dpkg-ruby and dpkg-checkdeps. I assume that these are used by some people because popcon says there are 141 installs (and this is all that was in that package before). I considered the options of having a dpkg-ruby package, a ruby-dpkg package, or both. It seemed confusing to move the tool named dpkg-ruby to a package named ruby-dpkg, and it also seemed confusing to have both a dpkg-ruby and ruby-dpkg package, so I left it as dpkg-ruby. Anyways, I'm open to changing this decision if people agree that I made the wrong one. I expected that I could have. Cheers, Ryan -- signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Bug#639972: apt-listbugs: Depends on a few of transitional packages
On 02/09/11 at 19:24 +0200, Francesco Poli wrote: On Fri, 2 Sep 2011 11:31:24 +0200 Hilmar Preusse wrote: On 01.09.11 Francesco Poli (invernom...@paranoici.org) wrote: On Thu, 01 Sep 2011 10:35:04 +0200 Hilmar Preusse wrote: Hi, dep: libhttpclient-ruby1.8 (= 2.1.5.2-1) Transitional package for ruby-httpclient also a virtual package provided by ruby-httpclient Should I keep the version constraint in the dependency, as in: Depends: [...] ruby-httpclient (= 2.1.5.2-1) in order to give useful hints to people who could wish to backport future versions of apt-listbugs to squeeze (or earlier Debian versions)? Or should I just depend on an unversioned ruby-httpclient? I'm sorry, I can't really help here. I suggest to contact the authors of the packages. Lucas, could you please advice? You may find more context at http://bugs.debian.org/639972 Hi, Do you know why those versioned deps were introduced? In any case, using versioned deps is probably the safe solution here. Lucas -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-bugs-dist-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Bug#639972: apt-listbugs: Depends on a few of transitional packages
On Sat, 3 Sep 2011 22:32:19 +0200 Lucas Nussbaum wrote: [...] Hi, Hi Lucas, thanks a lot for your kind reply! Do you know why those versioned deps were introduced? Well, actually, after digging into the git repository, I remembered that the versioned dependency was introduced by me for a previous transition... :-/ http://anonscm.debian.org/gitweb/?p=apt-listbugs/apt-listbugs.git;a=commitdiff;h=8da1d43065b8427abe52e4c93f9ee9dfe369f0ff In other words, in that occasion, I didn't think about people who could wish to backport apt-listbugs. So maybe, I could do the same now and update the version. On the other hand, keeping the old version as a useful indication for potential backporters looks like a good idea. In any case, using versioned deps is probably the safe solution here. Good, if what I discovered doesn't change the conclusion, I'll keep the versioned dependency. Thanks a lot for your input. -- http://www.inventati.org/frx/frx-gpg-key-transition-2010.txt New GnuPG key, see the transition document! . Francesco Poli . GnuPG key fpr == CA01 1147 9CD2 EFDF FB82 3925 3E1C 27E1 1F69 BFFE pgpsORoskk7F3.pgp Description: PGP signature
Bug#639972: apt-listbugs: Depends on a few of transitional packages
On 01.09.11 Francesco Poli (invernom...@paranoici.org) wrote: On Thu, 01 Sep 2011 10:35:04 +0200 Hilmar Preusse wrote: Hi, dep: libhttpclient-ruby1.8 (= 2.1.5.2-1) Transitional package for ruby-httpclient also a virtual package provided by ruby-httpclient Should I keep the version constraint in the dependency, as in: Depends: [...] ruby-httpclient (= 2.1.5.2-1) in order to give useful hints to people who could wish to backport future versions of apt-listbugs to squeeze (or earlier Debian versions)? Or should I just depend on an unversioned ruby-httpclient? I'm sorry, I can't really help here. I suggest to contact the authors of the packages. Hilmar -- sigmentation fault signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Bug#639972: apt-listbugs: Depends on a few of transitional packages
On Fri, 2 Sep 2011 11:31:24 +0200 Hilmar Preusse wrote: On 01.09.11 Francesco Poli (invernom...@paranoici.org) wrote: On Thu, 01 Sep 2011 10:35:04 +0200 Hilmar Preusse wrote: Hi, dep: libhttpclient-ruby1.8 (= 2.1.5.2-1) Transitional package for ruby-httpclient also a virtual package provided by ruby-httpclient Should I keep the version constraint in the dependency, as in: Depends: [...] ruby-httpclient (= 2.1.5.2-1) in order to give useful hints to people who could wish to backport future versions of apt-listbugs to squeeze (or earlier Debian versions)? Or should I just depend on an unversioned ruby-httpclient? I'm sorry, I can't really help here. I suggest to contact the authors of the packages. Lucas, could you please advice? You may find more context at http://bugs.debian.org/639972 Thanks for your time. -- http://www.inventati.org/frx/frx-gpg-key-transition-2010.txt New GnuPG key, see the transition document! . Francesco Poli . GnuPG key fpr == CA01 1147 9CD2 EFDF FB82 3925 3E1C 27E1 1F69 BFFE pgphDrpQyzGC0.pgp Description: PGP signature
Bug#639972: apt-listbugs: Depends on a few of transitional packages
Package: apt-listbugs Version: 0.1.5 Severity: important Dear Maintainers, I just noticed that apt-listbugs depends on a few transitional packages. Please consider to correct these and to replace them by the correct depends: dep: libhttpclient-ruby1.8 (= 2.1.5.2-1) Transitional package for ruby-httpclient also a virtual package provided by ruby-httpclient dep: libxml-parser-ruby1.8 Transitional package for ruby-xmlparser also a virtual package provided by ruby-xmlparser dep: ruby (= 1.8) Transitional package for ruby1.8 also a virtual package provided by ruby1.8 Thanks, Hilmar -- System Information: Debian Release: wheezy/sid APT prefers unstable APT policy: (500, 'unstable') Architecture: i386 (i686) Kernel: Linux 3.0.0-1-686-pae (SMP w/1 CPU core) Locale: LANG=en_US.UTF-8, LC_CTYPE=en_US.UTF-8 (charmap=UTF-8) (ignored: LC_ALL set to en_GB.UTF-8) Shell: /bin/sh linked to /bin/bash Versions of packages apt-listbugs depends on: ii apt 0.8.15.6 ii libdpkg-ruby1.8 0.3.6+nmu1 ii libgettext-ruby1.8 2.1.0-2.1 ii libhttpclient-ruby1.82.2.1-1 ii libruby1.8 [libzlib-ruby1.8] 1.8.7.352-2 ii libxml-parser-ruby1.80.7.2-1 ii ruby 4.8 ii ruby-httpclient [libhttpclient-ruby1.8] 2.2.1-1 ii ruby-xmlparser [libxml-parser-ruby1.8] 0.7.2-1 ii ruby1.8 [ruby] 1.8.7.352-2 apt-listbugs recommends no packages. Versions of packages apt-listbugs suggests: ii debianutils 4.0.2 ii lynx-cur [www-browser] 2.8.8dev.9-2 ii reportbug 6.2 ii w3m [www-browser] 0.5.3-3 -- no debconf information -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-bugs-dist-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Bug#639972: apt-listbugs: Depends on a few of transitional packages
On Thu, 01 Sep 2011 10:35:04 +0200 Hilmar Preusse wrote: Package: apt-listbugs Version: 0.1.5 Severity: important Dear Maintainers, I just noticed that apt-listbugs depends on a few transitional packages. Please consider to correct these and to replace them by the correct depends: Dear Hilmar, thanks a lot for your bug report: it's a useful reminder to implement the adjustments described in http://wiki.debian.org/Teams/Ruby/Packaging?action=showredirect=Teams%2FRuby%2FRubyInWheezy and pointed out in http://lists.debian.org/debian-ruby/2011/06/msg00013.html I was waiting for the right time to make those modifications. I'll do them soon. dep: libhttpclient-ruby1.8 (= 2.1.5.2-1) Transitional package for ruby-httpclient also a virtual package provided by ruby-httpclient Should I keep the version constraint in the dependency, as in: Depends: [...] ruby-httpclient (= 2.1.5.2-1) in order to give useful hints to people who could wish to backport future versions of apt-listbugs to squeeze (or earlier Debian versions)? Or should I just depend on an unversioned ruby-httpclient? [...] Thanks, Thanks to you! -- http://www.inventati.org/frx/frx-gpg-key-transition-2010.txt New GnuPG key, see the transition document! . Francesco Poli . GnuPG key fpr == CA01 1147 9CD2 EFDF FB82 3925 3E1C 27E1 1F69 BFFE pgp235CY2e0WU.pgp Description: PGP signature
