Re: let missing-debian-source-format lintian tag be a warning!
On Wed, 2014-07-16 at 09:20:51 +0200, Raphael Hertzog wrote: On Wed, 16 Jul 2014, Guillem Jover wrote: The only reason for that warning right now is to pester people into either switching, which they should be doing out of their own volition anyway because people think the new formats are really superior and help them. Or so that people set it explicitly to 1.0 just to shut up the warning, and then we have some kind of stats of how many people have been pestered… Which I think is the wrong way about trying to get people to switch. You see it only from a negative side, sure there are a few people who consider this message as pestering them but it really filled the role of the missing lintian warning for all people who create source packages from scratch and/or who take over old packages and use the lintian output as their todo list. I'll take a long tail of packages that have not switched to new stuff because they are practically unmaintained or because the maintainer didn't yet find the time to switch, than one that is composed of those plus ones from disgruntled or alienated maintainers, any day. Removal of that warning is just a step in trying to heal those “wounds”. Certainly that without this message the adoption rate of the new formats would not have been so good as it has been (which despite some of the critics, is probably one the best adoption rate for such wide scale opt-in changes in the Debian history). I don't think the adoption rate has been much different in relative terms to any other such change in Debian, and I expect the long tail to linger for a long time. I also think a bigger factor was the very aggressive campaign at the beginning, which at the same time seemed counterproductive as it pushed the wrong buttons for quite some people. So to sum it up, I'm OK for dropping that message but only if lintian gets the corresponding tag raised to a warning level and IMO it still makes sense in the long term for dpkg-source to abort if debian/source/format is missing, precisely because the historical default no longer matches Debian's desired default. It does not make sense, because when it comes to source packages, there isn't and never has been a default from dpkg-source or even Debian. dpkg-source builds whatever is provided by the maintainer, and it does not (and cannot as currently designed) perform any format conversion on its own (compared to dpkg-deb f.ex.). There might be a project preferred or recommended format, or packages such as dh-make or debmake might have such default but certainly not in dpkg-source or Debian. Bumping that lintian tag to a warning would be rather inappropriate IMO. Guillem -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: https://lists.debian.org/20140814082956.ga13...@gaara.hadrons.org
Re: let missing-debian-source-format lintian tag be a warning!
Le Wed, Jul 16, 2014 at 01:35:04AM +0100, Colin Watson a écrit : Having followed it up after last year's DebConf, I've been absolutely sold on git-dpm, FWIW; I find it does a great job of making the patch queue pleasant to maintain in a git-native style while providing a nice easy-to-read export to 3.0 (quilt) - that is, you don't actually use quilt manually. At that point 3.0 (quilt) makes a lot of sense to me as an automatable serialisation of upstream + patch queue + packaging with a minimum of package-specific code, and the only way in which it imposes a patch system is that the tools I'm using need to export to it (which is really not that much more than git format-patch with some care about file names, so no big deal, and people can still inspect and modify my source packages without my fancy tools). … gbp-pq is of course fairly similar. I looked at both although I admit that I only experimented extensively with git-dpm. They both look like they should get the job done, but git-dpm just seemed more featureful and polished to me based on its documentation, and I really like the way it handles the results of rebasing the patch queue. Thanks a lot Colin for your inspiring answer. After reading it, I tested both tools and I chose gbp-pq because my packaging team is already using git-buildpackage a lot (and because git-dpm quilckly gave me an error). Have a nice day, -- Charles Plessy Debian Med packaging team, http://www.debian.org/devel/debian-med Tsurumi, Kanagawa, Japan -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: https://lists.debian.org/20140721135141.gb25...@falafel.plessy.net
Re: let missing-debian-source-format lintian tag be a warning!
On Fri, Jul 18, 2014 at 10:17:28AM +0800, Thomas Goirand wrote: Got it now. And I agree. It'd be awesome if we had something like: quilt git-cherry-pick git-ref which would do the work. Then it wouldn't be a problem. git-dpm checkout-patched git cherry-pick COMMIT git commit --amend # add patch headers git-dpm dch -- 'description of change' :-) Also, it'd be super nice if someone gave a talk about git-dpm at Debconf, to explain to everyone how it works. Anyone? There was one last year - I don't have time to hunt out the video right now but it should be quite easy to find given that. -- Colin Watson [cjwat...@debian.org] -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: https://lists.debian.org/20140718225825.gb9...@riva.ucam.org
Re: let missing-debian-source-format lintian tag be a warning!
Guillem Jover wrote: Exactly. I don't have any intention to change the current dpkg-source default behavior in that regard. ACK. But people who touch packages without d/s/format can just write 1.0\n into it, to retain existing behaviour without the warning. Still, changing the default is bad⦠like /etc/dpkg/dpkg-source.cfg, which admittedly doesn't exist yet. But sure, that (and its $HOME counterpart) is a good idea and is something I'll be adding (possibly for 1.17.12) when also adding This has the potential of breaking all sorts of build scripts and dpkg wrappers that assume default behaviour when an option is not specified. This would also require all options to have no- counterparts to disable them again. (This is nicely solved in BSD land (including mksh getopts builtin) by the way, where there are no --gnu-long-options: -x turns -x on, +x turns -x off.) All maintainers of software that has historically had default behaviour and no configuration files, and is switching to use configuration files, either user-specific ones (can break the scripts) or system-wide ones (can break scripts as well as users) should, in the same go, add an *environment variable* to disable these. (An environment variable will just be ignored by older versions of such software; a --no-config-file option will usually error out on older versions and is thus a really bad idea.) bye, //mirabilos -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: https://lists.debian.org/lq8fhg$pec$1...@ger.gmane.org
Re: let missing-debian-source-format lintian tag be a warning!
On 07/17/2014 02:29 AM, Tollef Fog Heen wrote: ]] Thomas Goirand On 07/15/2014 09:42 AM, Charles Plessy wrote: I am not a big fan of the 3.0 (quilt) format because it imposes a patch system. In particular, this format does not make much sense when managing the source package with Git. I'm not sure I'm following you. I do use git for packaging, and I have no problem at all with format 3.0 (quilt). I was resisting to progress and reluctant to get out of my comfort zone at first, but now I like it. What is it that bothers/annoy you exactly? I can't speak for Plessy, but the entire concept of using a different, much more limited patch system on top of git is just.. weird. It makes absolutely no sense to dumb down all the rich metadata you have in your git repository to something that's possible to express using quilt. It's busywork that has very little value for anybody and a not-insignificant cost. Got it now. And I agree. It'd be awesome if we had something like: quilt git-cherry-pick git-ref which would do the work. Then it wouldn't be a problem. Also, it'd be super nice if someone gave a talk about git-dpm at Debconf, to explain to everyone how it works. Anyone? Cheers, Thomas -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: https://lists.debian.org/53c883b8.1060...@debian.org
Re: let missing-debian-source-format lintian tag be a warning!
Hi Charles,
Quoting Charles Plessy (2014-07-16 02:58:58)
viewed from the opposite side of the chain, I have the impression that in
most cases where I receive a report that package X does not build on
architecture Y, it is a pure waste of time, since that package has no user
base on that architecture.
while that package might have no user base, it might be required to build other
source packages on that architecture. You can easily check whether this is the
case by doing:
curl --silent http://bootstrap.debian.net/importance_metric_all.txt \
| awk '$1 == src:$yoursrcpkgname { print $3; }'
The number that is printed is the amount of other source packages which need
$yoursrcpkgname to be buildable so that they can be built on Debian sid amd64.
The file is regenerated daily.
So if you feel wookey becomes too eager you can tell him that not only do the
binary packages that $yoursrcpkgname builds have no users but it also is likely
not needed to build more source packages.
cheers, josch
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Archive: https://lists.debian.org/20140716060243.31130.14458@hoothoot
Re: let missing-debian-source-format lintian tag be a warning!
❦ 16 juillet 2014 09:58 +0900, Charles Plessy ple...@debian.org : Patch systems have a high importance in Debian because we accumulate patches that have little relevance for Upstream and the software's users. One of the solution is to standardise the patch systems, but another solution is to stop producing patches that have no practical impact for the users. What about patches that have a practical impact for the users, like solving an important or a security bug? -- printk(MASQUERADE: No route: Rusty's brain broke!\n); 2.4.3. linux/net/ipv4/netfilter/ipt_MASQUERADE.c signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Re: let missing-debian-source-format lintian tag be a warning!
Hi, 2014-07-16 3:36 GMT+02:00 Guillem Jover guil...@debian.org: Hi! [...] Such warning might have made sense iff: - the new formats had been uncontroversial, There is no such thing as being uncontroversial in Debian. There is always somebody nitpicking when gaining hundred features and losing one. That's why we have some cdbs packages, dh7, dh7. That's why we don't require Vcs-* fields. That's why we still have some packages using dpatch ... Oh, and I don't talk about systemd. Did I? Mathieu Parent -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: https://lists.debian.org/CAFX5sbya3cU39Lo-2mEP=i-orscmhbd_b5xt-t7bhy4cmtr...@mail.gmail.com
Re: let missing-debian-source-format lintian tag be a warning!
Hi, On Wed, 16 Jul 2014, Guillem Jover wrote: The only reason for that warning right now is to pester people into either switching, which they should be doing out of their own volition anyway because people think the new formats are really superior and help them. Or so that people set it explicitly to 1.0 just to shut up the warning, and then we have some kind of stats of how many people have been pestered… Which I think is the wrong way about trying to get people to switch. You see it only from a negative side, sure there are a few people who consider this message as pestering them but it really filled the role of the missing lintian warning for all people who create source packages from scratch and/or who take over old packages and use the lintian output as their todo list. Certainly that without this message the adoption rate of the new formats would not have been so good as it has been (which despite some of the critics, is probably one the best adoption rate for such wide scale opt-in changes in the Debian history). So to sum it up, I'm OK for dropping that message but only if lintian gets the corresponding tag raised to a warning level and IMO it still makes sense in the long term for dpkg-source to abort if debian/source/format is missing, precisely because the historical default no longer matches Debian's desired default. Cheers, -- Raphaël Hertzog ◈ Debian Developer Discover the Debian Administrator's Handbook: → http://debian-handbook.info/get/ -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: https://lists.debian.org/20140716072051.gd3...@x230-buxy.home.ouaza.com
Re: let missing-debian-source-format lintian tag be a warning!
]] Thomas Goirand On 07/15/2014 09:42 AM, Charles Plessy wrote: I am not a big fan of the 3.0 (quilt) format because it imposes a patch system. In particular, this format does not make much sense when managing the source package with Git. I'm not sure I'm following you. I do use git for packaging, and I have no problem at all with format 3.0 (quilt). I was resisting to progress and reluctant to get out of my comfort zone at first, but now I like it. What is it that bothers/annoy you exactly? I can't speak for Plessy, but the entire concept of using a different, much more limited patch system on top of git is just.. weird. It makes absolutely no sense to dumb down all the rich metadata you have in your git repository to something that's possible to express using quilt. It's busywork that has very little value for anybody and a not-insignificant cost. -- Tollef Fog Heen UNIX is user friendly, it's just picky about who its friends are -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: https://lists.debian.org/8738e1i2dg@xoog.err.no
Re: let missing-debian-source-format lintian tag be a warning!
Tollef Fog Heen tfh...@err.no writes: I can't speak for Plessy, but the entire concept of using a different, much more limited patch system on top of git is just.. weird. It makes absolutely no sense to dumb down all the rich metadata you have in your git repository to something that's possible to express using quilt. It's busywork that has very little value for anybody and a not-insignificant cost. I used to feel this way, but have been slowly converting my own packages over to use gbp pq. The thing that made me change my mind was that I increasingly want to share the patches, as clearly-defined, separate, upstreamable units, with packages for other distributions and with upstream. While it's possible to maintain artifacts in Git as used normally that accomplish that end (such as by maintaining multiple topic branches), it's actually quite complex and irritating, and those artifacts aren't then exposed in the packaging system, and hence aren't readily available in patch-tracker (when it's working). I'm uninterested in quilt per se, and am happy not to have to use it any longer, but the debian/patches *format* is very nice for this purpose. It exposes, as a packaging artifact, high-quality, separated patches that can be considered and upstreamed individually. And now that there are good tools for managing those artifacts without giving up the general usability of Git, I've been convinced it's worth the additional effort. It's still more work than just merging Git branches and using single-debian-patch, so I'm not sure if I'll ever get to the point where I do this with all of my packages. But it has more merits than I saw initially. -- Russ Allbery (r...@debian.org) http://www.eyrie.org/~eagle/ -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: https://lists.debian.org/87iomxcchm@windlord.stanford.edu
Re: let missing-debian-source-format lintian tag be a warning!
On Tue, Jul 15, 2014 at 4:48 AM, Steve Langasek vor...@debian.org wrote: Hi Steve, I understand not wanting to repackage the upstream tarball for source format 1.0. What I don't understand is why you *did* do this, instead of just switching the package to format 3.0 (quilt) as part of the update you were doing, or why you think a lintian warning would make any difference. I didn't say which package I touched. It was part of a NMU, now waiting for a possible ack by the maintainer. I don't feel well at changing the source format in a NMU. A proper lintian warning can enlighten the maintainer and push him toward the change or somehow qualify the NMUer to add that file (if there are no other big changes) https://wiki.debian.org/Projects/DebSrc3.0 Well, this is a one-sided view of the question from the creator of the 3.0 format, listing no disadvantages whatsoever. Good. It's a wiki page, let's edit it. There is a Advantages_of_new_formats section, you can add a Disadvantages_of_new_formats or Advantages_of_old_format. Or list them here. I'm really curios. As you can see I'm not an old or active or deeply knowledged debian developer/maintainer, so I can miss something. -- regards, Mattia Rizzolo GPG Key: 4096R/B9444540 http://goo.gl/I8TMB more about me: http://mapreri.org Launchpad User: https://launchpad.net/~mapreri Ubuntu Wiki page: https://wiki.ubuntu.com/MattiaRizzolo -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: https://lists.debian.org/CAHKYmesAxMbq+=hs9kwqhdzqq86snzshk2rqorvjxcg7v3v...@mail.gmail.com
Re: let missing-debian-source-format lintian tag be a warning!
On Tue, 15 Jul 2014, Mattia Rizzolo wrote: A proper lintian warning can enlighten the maintainer and push him toward the change or somehow qualify the NMUer to add that file (if there are no other big changes) There's no reason to have a debian/source/format in a classic debian package. The default is well defined. I strongly oppose the idea of having lintian complain about that even more. -- | .''`. ** Debian ** Peter Palfrader | : :' : The universal http://www.palfrader.org/ | `. `' Operating System | `-http://www.debian.org/ -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: https://lists.debian.org/20140715081100.gl...@anguilla.noreply.org
Re: let missing-debian-source-format lintian tag be a warning!
Hi, On Tue, 15 Jul 2014, Mattia Rizzolo wrote: https://wiki.debian.org/Projects/DebSrc3.0 Well, this is a one-sided view of the question from the creator of the 3.0 format, listing no disadvantages whatsoever. Good. It's a wiki page, let's edit it. There is a Advantages_of_new_formats section, you can add a Disadvantages_of_new_formats or Advantages_of_old_format. Or list them here. I'm really curios. As you can see I'm not an old or active or deeply knowledged debian developer/maintainer, so I can miss something. With all the enhancements made since its inception, I'm only aware of use sensible use case that's not really possible with the new source format: mixing quilt managed patches with non-managed changes typically created by git cherry-pick. This is something that the X Strike Force does routinely and that I never found the time to implement in the new source format. Otherwise everybody mostly acknowledge that 3.0 (quilt) can provide the same service as 1.0 with the --single-debian-patch option so I don't see any reason to not increase the lintian tag to warning. The X team can put 1.0 in that file and keep using this format until we have a proper solution for their use case and everybody else can have the required reminder that they ought to use one of the newer formats by default. If needed the tag description can be improved to mention the new option for people who want to keep the old behaviour. Cheers, -- Raphaël Hertzog ◈ Debian Developer Discover the Debian Administrator's Handbook: → http://debian-handbook.info/get/ -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: https://lists.debian.org/20140715083449.gb14...@x230-buxy.home.ouaza.com
Re: let missing-debian-source-format lintian tag be a warning!
On Tue, 15 Jul 2014, Peter Palfrader wrote: On Tue, 15 Jul 2014, Mattia Rizzolo wrote: A proper lintian warning can enlighten the maintainer and push him toward the change or somehow qualify the NMUer to add that file (if there are no other big changes) There's no reason to have a debian/source/format in a classic debian package. The default is well defined. I strongly oppose the idea of having lintian complain about that even more. It depends on your definition of default. The historical default of dpkg is well defined but it's no longer the default format used by Debian maintainers since we have a very large majority of 3.0 (quilt): http://upsilon.cc/~zack/stuff/dpkg-v3/ Keeping the historical default means that newcomers will keep doing the mistake of creating 1.0 source packages when we want them to create 3.0 (quilt/native) packages. What is so horrible in the idea of making an explicit choice of source format? Can we have a reasonable discussion based on real arguments and not on personal feelings? Cheers, -- Raphaël Hertzog ◈ Debian Developer Discover the Debian Administrator's Handbook: → http://debian-handbook.info/get/ -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: https://lists.debian.org/20140715084305.gc14...@x230-buxy.home.ouaza.com
Re: let missing-debian-source-format lintian tag be a warning!
On Tue, Jul 15, 2014 at 10:43:05AM +0200, Raphael Hertzog wrote: Can we have a reasonable discussion based on real arguments and not on personal feelings? I haven't read any personal feelings yet, apart from personal preferences about how to handle patches. It *is* a shame that the patch-handling aspect of 3.0 (Quilt) is offputting enough to folks that some are avoiding 3.0 altogether and not benefitting from the other improvements. However the single-debian-patch workaround is a pretty good compromise, IMHO, and perhaps just needs wider awareness. -- Jonathan Dowland -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: https://lists.debian.org/20140715142628.ga9...@bryant.redmars.org
Re: let missing-debian-source-format lintian tag be a warning!
On Tuesday, July 15, 2014 15:26:28 Jonathan Dowland wrote: On Tue, Jul 15, 2014 at 10:43:05AM +0200, Raphael Hertzog wrote: Can we have a reasonable discussion based on real arguments and not on personal feelings? I haven't read any personal feelings yet, apart from personal preferences about how to handle patches. It *is* a shame that the patch-handling aspect of 3.0 (Quilt) is offputting enough to folks that some are avoiding 3.0 altogether and not benefitting from the other improvements. However the single-debian-patch workaround is a pretty good compromise, IMHO, and perhaps just needs wider awareness. It seems to me 3.0 (Quilt) is still applying patches when the package is extracted using dpkg-source. Is there a way to avoid that too? That's been my major objection. Scott K -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: https://lists.debian.org/3190289.SmRNKVh7D1@scott-latitude-e6320
Re: let missing-debian-source-format lintian tag be a warning!
On 07/15/2014 09:42 AM, Charles Plessy wrote: I am not a big fan of the 3.0 (quilt) format because it imposes a patch system. In particular, this format does not make much sense when managing the source package with Git. I'm not sure I'm following you. I do use git for packaging, and I have no problem at all with format 3.0 (quilt). I was resisting to progress and reluctant to get out of my comfort zone at first, but now I like it. What is it that bothers/annoy you exactly? Cheers, Thomas -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: https://lists.debian.org/53c54a59.5010...@debian.org
Re: let missing-debian-source-format lintian tag be a warning!
Scott Kitterman deb...@kitterman.com wrote: [...] It seems to me 3.0 (Quilt) is still applying patches when the package is extracted using dpkg-source. Is there a way to avoid that too? That's been my major objection. dpkg-source -x --skip-patches foo.dsc (Does not work in debian/source/options, though) cu Andreas -- `What a good friend you are to him, Dr. Maturin. His other friends are so grateful to you.' `I sew his ears on from time to time, sure' -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: https://lists.debian.org/ng0g9b-oc1@argenau.downhill.at.eu.org
Re: let missing-debian-source-format lintian tag be a warning!
On Tuesday, July 15, 2014 18:12:41 Andreas Metzler wrote: Scott Kitterman deb...@kitterman.com wrote: [...] It seems to me 3.0 (Quilt) is still applying patches when the package is extracted using dpkg-source. Is there a way to avoid that too? That's been my major objection. dpkg-source -x --skip-patches foo.dsc (Does not work in debian/source/options, though) Not adding debian/source/format gets me the same thing with less typing (although I appreciate knowing about the option, I'd missed that before). If that worked in debian/source/options, then I don't think I'd have a strong reason to avoid 3.0 (Quilt). Scott K -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: https://lists.debian.org/16345713.7qspDBtfcA@scott-latitude-e6320
Re: let missing-debian-source-format lintian tag be a warning!
On Tue, Jul 15, 2014 at 03:26:28PM +0100, Jonathan Dowland wrote: It *is* a shame that the patch-handling aspect of 3.0 (Quilt) is offputting enough to folks that some are avoiding 3.0 altogether and not benefitting from the other improvements. However the single-debian-patch workaround is a pretty good compromise, IMHO, and perhaps just needs wider awareness. I wonder, what if we changed the meaning of no debian/source/format to 3.0 (quilt) + single-debian-patch? Would anything break? -- Gnome 3, Windows 8, Slashdot Beta, now Firefox Ribbon^WAustralis. WTF is going on with replacing usable interfaces with tabletized ones? -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: https://lists.debian.org/20140715174543.ga16...@angband.pl
Re: let missing-debian-source-format lintian tag be a warning!
Adam Borowski kilob...@angband.pl writes: On Tue, Jul 15, 2014 at 03:26:28PM +0100, Jonathan Dowland wrote: It *is* a shame that the patch-handling aspect of 3.0 (Quilt) is offputting enough to folks that some are avoiding 3.0 altogether and not benefitting from the other improvements. However the single-debian-patch workaround is a pretty good compromise, IMHO, and perhaps just needs wider awareness. I wonder, what if we changed the meaning of no debian/source/format to 3.0 (quilt) + single-debian-patch? Would anything break? Yes: packages that are already using quilt with debian/patches and the 1.0 source format (perhaps because they don't want patches applied automatically on unpack but instead want control of that in debian/rules for one reason or another) would not play well with that change, since both the existing quilt system and the 3.0 (quilt) source format want to control and interpret debian/patches. -- Russ Allbery (r...@debian.org) http://www.eyrie.org/~eagle/ -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: https://lists.debian.org/877g3eo6ex@windlord.stanford.edu
Re: let missing-debian-source-format lintian tag be a warning!
Hi Scott, On Tue, 15 Jul 2014, Scott Kitterman wrote: It seems to me 3.0 (Quilt) is still applying patches when the package is extracted using dpkg-source. Is there a way to avoid that too? That's been my major objection. Can you elaborate on your objection? Having patches applied by default is one of the main reasons why people asked for a new source package format. It's very disconcerting for most people to call dpkg-source -x and then not have the sources as they are built by Debian. Thus I believe that the current approach is the right one: apply by default and let people with special needs use some options. Can you agree with that? If not, can you explain why you don't agree? Cheers, -- Raphaël Hertzog ◈ Debian Developer Discover the Debian Administrator's Handbook: → http://debian-handbook.info/get/ -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: https://lists.debian.org/20140715190432.gc26...@x230-buxy.home.ouaza.com
Re: let missing-debian-source-format lintian tag be a warning!
Hi, On Tue, 15 Jul 2014, Jonathan Dowland wrote: It *is* a shame that the patch-handling aspect of 3.0 (Quilt) is offputting enough to folks that some are avoiding 3.0 altogether and not benefitting from the other improvements. However the single-debian-patch workaround is a pretty good compromise, IMHO, and perhaps just needs wider awareness. What is so offputting? Is it quilt itself? If quilt is the problem, aren't you more satisfied with tools like gbp-pq that lets you avoid quilt and use (rebased) git branches to manage the quilt series? Cheers, -- Raphaël Hertzog ◈ Debian Developer Discover the Debian Administrator's Handbook: → http://debian-handbook.info/get/ -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: https://lists.debian.org/20140715190718.gd26...@x230-buxy.home.ouaza.com
Re: let missing-debian-source-format lintian tag be a warning!
On Tuesday, July 15, 2014 21:04:32 Raphael Hertzog wrote: Hi Scott, On Tue, 15 Jul 2014, Scott Kitterman wrote: It seems to me 3.0 (Quilt) is still applying patches when the package is extracted using dpkg-source. Is there a way to avoid that too? That's been my major objection. Can you elaborate on your objection? Having patches applied by default is one of the main reasons why people asked for a new source package format. It's very disconcerting for most people to call dpkg-source -x and then not have the sources as they are built by Debian. Thus I believe that the current approach is the right one: apply by default and let people with special needs use some options. Can you agree with that? If not, can you explain why you don't agree? It's perhaps just my mental model of the way packaging works. You have the upstream part and the Debian part. When you unpack a package, the Debian part is in the Debian directory. The upstream part is not. If patches are applied on extraction, this separation is violated and seems to me fundamentally wrong. If the majority of the project doesn't see it that way and chooses not to care/want patches applied, then I don't seek to overturn that. It would be nice, however, to have a way to specify the alternate behavior in a consistent reliable way (meaning something I can put in the package when I add source/format). Scott K -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: https://lists.debian.org/1484304.9BRKLAu1OC@scott-latitude-e6320
Re: let missing-debian-source-format lintian tag be a warning!
On Jul 15, 2014, at 12:37 PM, Scott Kitterman wrote: On Tuesday, July 15, 2014 18:12:41 Andreas Metzler wrote: Scott Kitterman deb...@kitterman.com wrote: [...] It seems to me 3.0 (Quilt) is still applying patches when the package is extracted using dpkg-source. Is there a way to avoid that too? That's been my major objection. dpkg-source -x --skip-patches foo.dsc (Does not work in debian/source/options, though) Not adding debian/source/format gets me the same thing with less typing (although I appreciate knowing about the option, I'd missed that before). If that worked in debian/source/options, then I don't think I'd have a strong reason to avoid 3.0 (Quilt). Should it though? Isn't to apply or not apply patches automatically a preference of the individual developer rather than of the package? Especially for team maintained packages, if you and I are on a team, you might not want it to apply patches but I might. I suppose in those cases though, teams (or even co-maintainers) can establish conventions, although it would be nice in that case to also have a --no-skip-patches option. Cheers, -Barry signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Re: let missing-debian-source-format lintian tag be a warning!
On Jul 15, 2014, at 09:07 PM, Raphael Hertzog wrote: If quilt is the problem, aren't you more satisfied with tools like gbp-pq that lets you avoid quilt and use (rebased) git branches to manage the quilt series? My one experience with this was not very successful, although I'm sure it was pebkac, and yes I should have filed actual bugs if I found them (but was under a crunch at the time). IIRC, where I would normally apply a quilt patch, edit the file, and refresh the patch, I always ended up with every modification as a separate d/patches file, even though I thought I was rebasing it correctly. Oh well - I'm curmudgeonly pretty comfortable with the svn-buildpackage set of tools and workflows, which the DPMT still prefers. I need to play more with gbp and git-dpm, the latter which IIRC felt smoother. Is there any emerging consensus on which of the two git-based package development regimes is better or more popular? Cheers, -Barry signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Re: let missing-debian-source-format lintian tag be a warning!
On Tue, Jul 15, 2014 at 10:53:10AM -0700, Russ Allbery wrote: Adam Borowski kilob...@angband.pl writes: On Tue, Jul 15, 2014 at 03:26:28PM +0100, Jonathan Dowland wrote: It *is* a shame that the patch-handling aspect of 3.0 (Quilt) is offputting enough to folks that some are avoiding 3.0 altogether and not benefitting from the other improvements. However the single-debian-patch workaround is a pretty good compromise, IMHO, and perhaps just needs wider awareness. I wonder, what if we changed the meaning of no debian/source/format to 3.0 (quilt) + single-debian-patch? Would anything break? Yes: packages that are already using quilt with debian/patches and the 1.0 source format (perhaps because they don't want patches applied automatically on unpack but instead want control of that in debian/rules for one reason or another) would not play well with that change, since both the existing quilt system and the 3.0 (quilt) source format want to control and interpret debian/patches. I checked: it looks like 1050 (!) source packages use the 1.0 format _and_ have a debian/patches directory. Suffering both 1.0 and quilt... the worst of both worlds. Scary! -- Gnome 3, Windows 8, Slashdot Beta, now Firefox Ribbon^WAustralis. WTF is going on with replacing usable interfaces with tabletized ones? -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: https://lists.debian.org/20140715221941.ga20...@angband.pl
Re: let missing-debian-source-format lintian tag be a warning!
On Tue, Jul 15, 2014 at 3:50 PM, Scott Kitterman wrote: It would be nice, however, to have a way to specify the alternate behavior in a consistent reliable way (meaning something I can put in the package when I add source/format). Archive consistency is far more important than individual maintainer preference about this behavior. People that work on lots of different packages deserve dpkg-source to act consistently across the entire archive. This would be far better solved with a system conffile of some sort like /etc/dpkg/dpkg-source.cfg, which admittedly doesn't exist yet. Best wishes, Mike -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: https://lists.debian.org/CANTw=MPWsRUi0Lw29s3H7Vh1+_4p=c2kovlge81ytcb8yv9...@mail.gmail.com
Re: let missing-debian-source-format lintian tag be a warning!
On Wed, Jul 16, 2014 at 12:39 AM, Michael Gilbert mgilb...@debian.org wrote: This would be far better solved with a system conffile of some sort like /etc/dpkg/dpkg-source.cfg, which admittedly doesn't exist yet. in general I feel the lack of a $HOME/.dpkg.conf conffile... Luckily there are wrappers (debuild?) that take care of passing the options I want to dpkg-* programs. -- regards, Mattia Rizzolo GPG Key: 4096R/B9444540 http://goo.gl/I8TMB more about me: http://mapreri.org Launchpad User: https://launchpad.net/~mapreri Ubuntu Wiki page: https://wiki.ubuntu.com/MattiaRizzolo -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: https://lists.debian.org/cahkymeshprn-t80jc+6s+3f+dmskeswtuonupxmzypk+gey...@mail.gmail.com
Re: let missing-debian-source-format lintian tag be a warning!
2014-07-16 0:44 GMT+02:00 Mattia Rizzolo mat...@mapreri.org: On Wed, Jul 16, 2014 at 12:39 AM, Michael Gilbert mgilb...@debian.org wrote: This would be far better solved with a system conffile of some sort like /etc/dpkg/dpkg-source.cfg, which admittedly doesn't exist yet. in general I feel the lack of a $HOME/.dpkg.conf conffile... Luckily there are wrappers (debuild?) that take care of passing the options I want to dpkg-* programs. That config file sounds like a really great idea to suit everyone. With something like that in place and the one-patch solution for people who want to maintain their patches differently, there shouldn't be disadvantages of switching to 0.3 (quilt), or am I missing some? Cheers, Matthias -- Debian Developer | Freedesktop-Developer I welcome VSRE emails. See http://vsre.info/ -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: https://lists.debian.org/caknhny9krwn50g4xxg5bzxq8kgqw5b4k84n2yrgszrwcb-r...@mail.gmail.com
Re: let missing-debian-source-format lintian tag be a warning!
+++ Michael Gilbert [2014-07-15 18:39 -0400]: On Tue, Jul 15, 2014 at 3:50 PM, Scott Kitterman wrote: It would be nice, however, to have a way to specify the alternate behavior in a consistent reliable way (meaning something I can put in the package when I add source/format). Archive consistency is far more important than individual maintainer preference about this behavior. People that work on lots of different packages deserve dpkg-source to act consistently across the entire archive. I would strongly second this view. As a porter it is a very good thing thing that all quilt/3.0 packages behave the same way, whatever the maintainer's preferences. Having some aply patches and some not, would just be yet another source of random oddness in packages, and we have more than enough of that already. This would be far better solved with a system conffile of some sort like /etc/dpkg/dpkg-source.cfg, which admittedly doesn't exist yet. Agreed. Wookey -- Principal hats: Linaro, Emdebian, Wookware, Balloonboard, ARM http://wookware.org/ -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: https://lists.debian.org/20140716001905.gk22...@stoneboat.aleph1.co.uk
Re: let missing-debian-source-format lintian tag be a warning!
On Tue, Jul 15, 2014 at 10:42:15AM +0900, Charles Plessy wrote: Le Tue, Jul 15, 2014 at 03:26:30AM +0200, Mattia Rizzolo a écrit : In fact I'm wondering what is the rationale to stay with the 1.0 format, given all the benefits of the 3.0 (quilt) format: Hi Mattia, I am not a big fan of the 3.0 (quilt) format because it imposes a patch system. In particular, this format does not make much sense when managing the source package with Git. Having followed it up after last year's DebConf, I've been absolutely sold on git-dpm, FWIW; I find it does a great job of making the patch queue pleasant to maintain in a git-native style while providing a nice easy-to-read export to 3.0 (quilt) - that is, you don't actually use quilt manually. At that point 3.0 (quilt) makes a lot of sense to me as an automatable serialisation of upstream + patch queue + packaging with a minimum of package-specific code, and the only way in which it imposes a patch system is that the tools I'm using need to export to it (which is really not that much more than git format-patch with some care about file names, so no big deal, and people can still inspect and modify my source packages without my fancy tools). Getting my head around git-dpm was the tipping point for me to spend some time converting my packages out of bzr or older systems, and now I find myself actively seeking out things I can do with it, which seems to me to be a quite remarkable property in this sort of tool especially given that I started out not being desperately fond of git. And I was going to need some kind of patch queue against upstream in many cases anyway, so it's not as though it adds some new overhead that I wouldn't have had to care about without 3.0 (quilt). A good number of my packages are now just fancy branches of upstream's git repository, which is IMO right and proper. gbp-pq is of course fairly similar. I looked at both although I admit that I only experimented extensively with git-dpm. They both look like they should get the job done, but git-dpm just seemed more featureful and polished to me based on its documentation, and I really like the way it handles the results of rebasing the patch queue. For completeness, the only downsides I've encountered after six months or so of using git-dpm are: * If you have a big patch queue then it can create rather a lot of commits, since changes deep in the queue cause everything after them to be rebased and the tip of the rebased branch merged into master. This is fine in gitk or similar, and it's a clever and useful way to keep track of various versions of a rebasing branch while keeping the end result fast-forwarding, but it can be a little puzzling in things like a gitweb shortlog. * It (perhaps necessarily?) doesn't quite do an exact round-trip of debian/patches/ when you first convert to it, since it exports patches using git format-patch and so changes the format of patch headers a bit. I decided that I didn't find the changes objectionable for my own packages, but it's not entirely obvious how things would work if you were to try to make this scheme work for all 3.0 (quilt) packages in dgit, where you want to make sure to round-trip cleanly. * Not really git-dpm's fault, but the bug fixed in http://www.spinics.net/lists/git/msg234123.html caused some confusion on a couple of occasions when rebasing against new upstream releases. Anyway, worth a look if you haven't already. -- Colin Watson [cjwat...@debian.org] -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: https://lists.debian.org/20140716003504.ga28...@riva.ucam.org
Re: let missing-debian-source-format lintian tag be a warning!
Le Wed, Jul 16, 2014 at 01:19:05AM +0100, Wookey a écrit : +++ Michael Gilbert [2014-07-15 18:39 -0400]: On Tue, Jul 15, 2014 at 3:50 PM, Scott Kitterman wrote: It would be nice, however, to have a way to specify the alternate behavior in a consistent reliable way (meaning something I can put in the package when I add source/format). Archive consistency is far more important than individual maintainer preference about this behavior. People that work on lots of different packages deserve dpkg-source to act consistently across the entire archive. I would strongly second this view. As a porter it is a very good thing thing that all quilt/3.0 packages behave the same way, whatever the maintainer's preferences. Having some aply patches and some not, would just be yet another source of random oddness in packages, and we have more than enough of that already. Hi Wookey, viewed from the opposite side of the chain, I have the impression that in most cases where I receive a report that package X does not build on architecture Y, it is a pure waste of time, since that package has no user base on that architecture. Patch systems have a high importance in Debian because we accumulate patches that have little relevance for Upstream and the software's users. One of the solution is to standardise the patch systems, but another solution is to stop producing patches that have no practical impact for the users. Have a nice day, -- Charles Plessy Tsurumi, Kanagawa, Japan -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: https://lists.debian.org/20140716005858.gg21...@falafel.plessy.net
Re: let missing-debian-source-format lintian tag be a warning!
Hi! On Tue, 2014-07-15 at 18:39:14 -0400, Michael Gilbert wrote: On Tue, Jul 15, 2014 at 3:50 PM, Scott Kitterman wrote: It would be nice, however, to have a way to specify the alternate behavior in a consistent reliable way (meaning something I can put in the package when I add source/format). Archive consistency is far more important than individual maintainer preference about this behavior. People that work on lots of different packages deserve dpkg-source to act consistently across the entire archive. Exactly. I don't have any intention to change the current dpkg-source default behavior in that regard. This would be far better solved with a system conffile of some sort like /etc/dpkg/dpkg-source.cfg, which admittedly doesn't exist yet. But sure, that (and its $HOME counterpart) is a good idea and is something I'll be adding (possibly for 1.17.12) when also adding config file support for dpkg-buildpackage. Coincidentally I've actually been looking very recently into cleaning up the command-line parsing code in dpkg-source to make, for example, --help output all format specific options, which I'll have to fix anyway to not output pestering warnings when using format specific options from a config file on the “wrong” source format. Arguably the problem exists already today, if one wants to use the same options w/o knowing what source format is being unpacked. Thanks, Guillem -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: https://lists.debian.org/20140716010817.ga13...@gaara.hadrons.org
Re: let missing-debian-source-format lintian tag be a warning!
Hi! On Tue, 2014-07-15 at 10:11:00 +0200, Peter Palfrader wrote: On Tue, 15 Jul 2014, Mattia Rizzolo wrote: A proper lintian warning can enlighten the maintainer and push him toward the change or somehow qualify the NMUer to add that file (if there are no other big changes) There's no reason to have a debian/source/format in a classic debian package. The default is well defined. I strongly oppose the idea of having lintian complain about that even more. In addition, currently dpkg-source emits a warning when there's no debian/source/format file present, and that's something that has been bothering me for a while and something I think I'll be changing (i.e. shutting up the warning). Such warning might have made sense iff: - the new formats had been uncontroversial, - source 1.0 packages could be automatically switched safely, - and we'd have decided that format 1.0 is deprecated, in which case we should just have switched the default, but none of the above has been the case. The only reason for that warning right now is to pester people into either switching, which they should be doing out of their own volition anyway because people think the new formats are really superior and help them. Or so that people set it explicitly to 1.0 just to shut up the warning, and then we have some kind of stats of how many people have been pestered… Which I think is the wrong way about trying to get people to switch. Thanks, Guillem -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: https://lists.debian.org/20140716013640.gb13...@gaara.hadrons.org
let missing-debian-source-format lintian tag be a warning!
Yesterday I touched another package without the debian/source/format file. It was sad: I had to repackage the entire upstream tarball to switch from .xz to .gz only to make dpkg happy and recognize it as non-native. For me this is a nonsense. Lintian has a info tag for this for a lot of time: http://lintian.debian.org/tags/missing-debian-source-format.html and in fact the package without that file are decrasing, but very slowly, making unnecessary difficult to contribue for prospective new contributers, and in the long term really deprecating the source format 1.0. Someone opened a bug against lintian: https://bugs.debian.org/702671 and I rised myself this concern to lintian maintainers, but it turn out that there are people that does not want lintian to be too pedantic nor to be forced to do as a simple thing as adding a 10-bytes file to their debian packages. In fact I'm wondering what is the rationale to stay with the 1.0 format, given all the benefits of the 3.0 (quilt) format: https://wiki.debian.org/Projects/DebSrc3.0 So, I would like to see what is the collective idea of the debian developers as a whole (or something like that, given that there not so much active developers in this ML, compared to the active people). -- regards, Mattia Rizzolo GPG Key: 4096R/B9444540 http://goo.gl/I8TMB more about me: http://mapreri.org Launchpad User: https://launchpad.net/~mapreri Ubuntu Wiki page: https://wiki.ubuntu.com/MattiaRizzolo signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: let missing-debian-source-format lintian tag be a warning!
Le Tue, Jul 15, 2014 at 03:26:30AM +0200, Mattia Rizzolo a écrit : In fact I'm wondering what is the rationale to stay with the 1.0 format, given all the benefits of the 3.0 (quilt) format: Hi Mattia, I am not a big fan of the 3.0 (quilt) format because it imposes a patch system. In particular, this format does not make much sense when managing the source package with Git. This said, adding “single-debian-patch” in debian/source/options makes the 3.0 (quilt) format emulate the 1.0 format quite well, while keeping the benefits of the 3.0 format family, in particular having the debian directory in a separate tarball, and supporing xz compression for the original upstream tarball. So on my side, if the single-debian-patch workaround is widely accepted (in debian/source/options, not debian/source/local-options), then I would not mind the 1.0 format to go away. This said, even the 3.0 (quilt) format is starting to show its age. We need to be ready for the post-tarball era… Cheers, -- Charles Plessy Tsurumi, Kanagawa, Japan -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: https://lists.debian.org/20140715014215.gd21...@falafel.plessy.net
Re: let missing-debian-source-format lintian tag be a warning!
Hi Mattia, On Tue, Jul 15, 2014 at 03:26:30AM +0200, Mattia Rizzolo wrote: Yesterday I touched another package without the debian/source/format file. It was sad: I had to repackage the entire upstream tarball to switch from .xz to .gz only to make dpkg happy and recognize it as non-native. For me this is a nonsense. Lintian has a info tag for this for a lot of time: http://lintian.debian.org/tags/missing-debian-source-format.html and in fact the package without that file are decrasing, but very slowly, making unnecessary difficult to contribue for prospective new contributers, and in the long term really deprecating the source format 1.0. I understand not wanting to repackage the upstream tarball for source format 1.0. What I don't understand is why you *did* do this, instead of just switching the package to format 3.0 (quilt) as part of the update you were doing, or why you think a lintian warning would make any difference. The biggest reason for maintainers to have not migrated to 3.0 (quilt) is that it's additional work with no immediate benefit. If they don't have patches against the upstream source, it's an easy conversion but provides little benefit for the current version. If they do have patches against the upstream source, there's a more obvious benefit (standardization of patch systems) but it makes the conversion non-trivial. A new upstream version that provides its sources using a compression format that's incompatible with 1.0 is the obvious opportunity to switch to 3.0. Of course, in the absence of a 3.0 (quilt) switch, there's still no reason to repack the tarball; the only thing you'd need to do is recompress it (unxz; gunzip). Someone opened a bug against lintian: https://bugs.debian.org/702671 and I rised myself this concern to lintian maintainers, but it turn out that there are people that does not want lintian to be too pedantic nor to be forced to do as a simple thing as adding a 10-bytes file to their debian packages. In fact I'm wondering what is the rationale to stay with the 1.0 format, given all the benefits of the 3.0 (quilt) format: https://wiki.debian.org/Projects/DebSrc3.0 Well, this is a one-sided view of the question from the creator of the 3.0 format, listing no disadvantages whatsoever. -- Steve Langasek Give me a lever long enough and a Free OS Debian Developer to set it on, and I can move the world. Ubuntu Developerhttp://www.debian.org/ slanga...@ubuntu.com vor...@debian.org signature.asc Description: Digital signature
