Bug#773149: what to do with x52pro???
Control: tags -1 - moreinfo On 2014-12-23 17:55, Ivo De Decker wrote: OK. Please go ahead with the upload and remove the moreinfo tag once the new version is in unstable. Uploaded. The updated udev rules are not used, just integrated in case someone wants to play with the source package. Could you mention that in the patch comment? Done. Andreas -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-release-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: https://lists.debian.org/54add6d5.9080...@debian.org
Processed: Re: Bug#773149: what to do with x52pro???
Processing control commands: tags -1 - moreinfo Bug #773149 [release.debian.org] unblock: x52pro/0.1.1-2.2 (pre-approval) Removed tag(s) moreinfo. -- 773149: http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=773149 Debian Bug Tracking System Contact ow...@bugs.debian.org with problems -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-release-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: https://lists.debian.org/handler.s.b773149.14206788739061.transcr...@bugs.debian.org
Bug#773149: what to do with x52pro???
Control: tags -1 moreinfo Hi, On Thu, Dec 18, 2014 at 01:08:46PM +0100, Andreas Beckmann wrote: Upgrade path seems fine now. OK. Please go ahead with the upload and remove the moreinfo tag once the new version is in unstable. The updated udev rules are not used, just integrated in case someone wants to play with the source package. Could you mention that in the patch comment? Instead I replaced the wheezy conffile (that uses outdated syntax and could trigger udev warnings) with a dummy one, too (to avoid dpkg-maintscript-helper rm_conffile) Cheers, Ivo -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-release-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: https://lists.debian.org/20141223165505.gb8...@ugent.be
Processed: Re: Bug#773149: what to do with x52pro???
Processing control commands: tags -1 moreinfo Bug #773149 [release.debian.org] unblock: x52pro/0.1.1-2.2 (pre-approval) Added tag(s) moreinfo. -- 773149: http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=773149 Debian Bug Tracking System Contact ow...@bugs.debian.org with problems -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-release-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: https://lists.debian.org/handler.s.b773149.141935371329310.transcr...@bugs.debian.org
Processed: Re: Bug#773149: what to do with x52pro???
Processing control commands: tag -1 - moreinfo Bug #773149 [release.debian.org] what to do with x52pro??? Removed tag(s) moreinfo. -- 773149: http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=773149 Debian Bug Tracking System Contact ow...@bugs.debian.org with problems -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-release-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: https://lists.debian.org/handler.s.b773149.14189045358550.transcr...@bugs.debian.org
Bug#773149: what to do with x52pro???
Control: tag -1 - moreinfo
On 2014-12-17 22:16, Jonathan Wiltshire wrote:
So I don't think there's much choice, even if it is really nasty...
If you're happy to prepare the dummy packages, please go ahead and let's
see how they turn out.
Upgrade path seems fine now.
The updated udev rules are not used, just integrated in case someone
wants to play with the source package. Instead I replaced the wheezy
conffile (that uses outdated syntax and could trigger udev warnings)
with a dummy one, too (to avoid dpkg-maintscript-helper rm_conffile)
Andreas
[The following lists of changes regard files as different if they have
different names, permissions or owners.]
Files in first .deb but not in second
-
-rw-r--r-- root/root /usr/lib/libx52pro.so.0.1.1
-rw-r--r-- root/root /usr/share/doc/libx52pro0/README
-rw-r--r-- root/root /usr/share/man/man1/x52output.1.gz
-rw-r--r-- root/root DEBIAN/shlibs
-rwxr-xr-x root/root /usr/bin/x52output
lrwxrwxrwx root/root /usr/lib/libx52pro.so.0 - libx52pro.so.0.1.1
Control files: lines which differ (wdiff format)
[-Depends: libc6 (= 2.2.5), libusb-0.1-4 (= 2:0.1.12)-]
Description: MFD and LED library for Saitek x52pro joysticks {+(dummy)+}
{+ This is an empty dummy package. It can be safely removed.+}
{+ .+}
feature is already fully support by the [-linux-] {+Linux+} kernel 2.6.x.
Installed-Size: [-79-] {+5+}
Version: [-0.1.1-2.1-] {+0.1.1-2.2+}
[The following lists of changes regard files as different if they have
different names, permissions or owners.]
Files in first .deb but not in second
-
-rw-r--r-- root/root /usr/include/x52pro.h
-rw-r--r-- root/root /usr/lib/pkgconfig/x52pro.pc
-rw-r--r-- root/root /usr/share/doc/libx52pro-dev/examples/x52output.c
lrwxrwxrwx root/root /usr/lib/libx52pro.so - libx52pro.so.0
Control files: lines which differ (wdiff format)
Depends: libx52pro0 (= [-0.1.1-2.1)-] {+0.1.1-2.2)+}
Description: MFD and LED library for Saitek X52pro joysticks - dev files
{+(dummy)+}
{+ This is an empty dummy package. It can be safely removed.+}
{+ .+}
feature is already fully support by the [-linux-] {+Linux+} kernel 2.6.x
Installed-Size: [-49-] {+3+}
Version: [-0.1.1-2.1-] {+0.1.1-2.2+}
x52pro_0.1.1-2.2.dsc.diff
Description: application/pgp-keys
Bug#773149: what to do with x52pro???
Control: tag -1 confirmed moreinfo On Mon, Dec 15, 2014 at 02:40:12AM +0100, Andreas Beckmann wrote: I would suggest the following: * reintroduce the packages libx52pro0 and libx52pro-dev as dummy packages into jessie: no files, no scripts (or only empty scripts if needed for smooth upgrades - to have the new script succeed after the old one failed) * there will be a clear upgrade path, this ensures the bad old scripts are gone and the dummy packages can be removed from jessie without problems * a (new) RC bug will be filed against the (soon to be) crippled package in sid to keep it out of stretch If this seems acceptable, I can prepare the dummy packages and send a debdiff. The other way is to fix it up through a point update in Wheezy before Jessie is released, but that doesn't guarantee the user will install it. So I don't think there's much choice, even if it is really nasty... If you're happy to prepare the dummy packages, please go ahead and let's see how they turn out. Thanks, -- Jonathan Wiltshire j...@debian.org Debian Developer http://people.debian.org/~jmw 4096R: 0xD3524C51 / 0A55 B7C5 1223 3942 86EC 74C3 5394 479D D352 4C51 signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Processed: Re: Bug#773149: what to do with x52pro???
Processing control commands: tag -1 confirmed moreinfo Bug #773149 [release.debian.org] what to do with x52pro??? Added tag(s) confirmed and moreinfo. -- 773149: http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=773149 Debian Bug Tracking System Contact ow...@bugs.debian.org with problems -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-release-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: https://lists.debian.org/handler.s.b773149.141885099632116.transcr...@bugs.debian.org
Bug#773149: what to do with x52pro???
Package: release.debian.org Severity: normal User: release.debian@packages.debian.org Usertags: unblock x52pro has been neglected after its initial maintainer upload and a single NMU in 2011. x52pro | 0.1.1-2.1 | wheezy | source x52pro | 0.1.1-2.1 | sid| source It has no rdepends in either wheezy or sid. It can be installed and removed in wheezy without problems. It is uninstallable in sid and therefore has been removed from testing. (#767675) But here comes the problem: It cannot be removed from jessie or sid if it was installed in wheezy and thereafter the system was distupgraded. (#773147) This is likely caused by the maintainer script calling udevadm which seems to have changed behavior ... I would suggest the following: * reintroduce the packages libx52pro0 and libx52pro-dev as dummy packages into jessie: no files, no scripts (or only empty scripts if needed for smooth upgrades - to have the new script succeed after the old one failed) * there will be a clear upgrade path, this ensures the bad old scripts are gone and the dummy packages can be removed from jessie without problems * a (new) RC bug will be filed against the (soon to be) crippled package in sid to keep it out of stretch If this seems acceptable, I can prepare the dummy packages and send a debdiff. Andreas -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-release-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: https://lists.debian.org/20141215014012.12335.95443.report...@zam581.zam.kfa-juelich.de
