Bug#994388: dpkg currently warning about merged-usr systems

2022-03-15 Thread Josh Triplett
It would appear that the situation has deteriorated further. dpkg 1.21.2 now issues a warning on all merged-usr systems: Setting up dpkg (1.21.2) ... dpkg: warning: System unsupported due to merged-usr-via-aliased-dirs. dpkg: warning: See .

Processed: unarchiving 994388

2022-03-15 Thread Debian Bug Tracking System
Processing commands for cont...@bugs.debian.org: > unarchive 994388 Bug #994388 {Done: Sean Whitton } [tech-ctte] tech-ctte: More specific advice regarding merged-/usr and implications of #978636 Unarchived Bug 994388 > thanks Stopping processing here. Please contact me if you need assistance.

Bug#1007717: Native source package format with non-native version

2022-03-15 Thread Sam Hartman
Dear TC, I cannot speak for what Ian wants, but I would also like to formally ask the TC to rule on this issue. My hope is that what Ian and I are asking for is similar enough that the TC can consider the issues together. Specifically, I'd like to ask the TC to come up with policy on native

Bug#1007717: Native source package format with non-native version

2022-03-15 Thread Russ Allbery
Sam Hartman writes: > Specifically, I'd like to ask the TC to come up with policy on native > packages and debian revisions using its power under 6.1.1. As a Policy Editor, I support this request. I've been involved in a lot of these discussions over the years, and the tentative conclusion

Native source package format with non-native version

2022-03-15 Thread Ian Jackson
Package: tech-ctte Please: Part I - belss continued use of 1.0 native format, for now at least: 1. Declare explicitly that there is nothing wrong with a package with a native format, but a non-native version number. 2. Request that the dpkg maintainer relax the restriction which

Bug#1007717: Native source package format with non-native version

2022-03-15 Thread Ian Jackson
Package: tech-ctte (Sorry for the resend, this should have gone to the BTS the first time; have fixed a slip in the wording.) Please: Part I - belss continued use of 1.0 native format, for now at least: 1. Declare explicitly that there is nothing wrong with a package with a native format,

Bug#1007717: Native source package format with non-native version

2022-03-15 Thread Sean Whitton
Hello, On Tue 15 Mar 2022 at 04:29pm GMT, Ian Jackson wrote: > Please: > > Part I - belss continued use of 1.0 native format, for now at least: > > 1. Declare explicitly that there is nothing wrong with a package with > a native format, but a non-native version number. > > 2. Request that

Bug#1007717: Fwd: Re: proposed MBF: packages still using source format 1.0

2022-03-15 Thread Sean Whitton
This mail from Ian last week is helpful (technical) background. -- Sean Whitton Start of forwarded message From: Ian Jackson Message-ID: <25128.55315.630468.333...@chiark.greenend.org.uk> Date: Wed, 9 Mar 2022 16:38:43 + To: Sean Whitton Cc: Russ

Bug#1007717: Native source package format with non-native version

2022-03-15 Thread Sam Hartman
> "Ian" == Ian Jackson writes: Ian> 3. Consequently, declare that the recent MBF on this topic Ian> ought not to have been filed against packages where simply Ian> changing the source format does not currently work. That would Ian> include at least 1.0 native packages with

Bug#1007717: Native source package format with non-native version

2022-03-15 Thread Helmut Grohne
Hi Ian, On Tue, Mar 15, 2022 at 04:29:17PM +, Ian Jackson wrote: > (Sorry for the resend, this should have gone to the BTS the first > time; have fixed a slip in the wording.) Thank you for resubmitting your issue as a bug report. Beyond the content of your request, I have a meta-question.

Bug#1007717: Native source package format with non-native version

2022-03-15 Thread Ian Jackson
A friend suggested some information that I could usefully provide: Firstly, I posted to -devel a summary of why format 3.0 is not pareto-better than 1.0. I have c it below. Secondly, I was asked if there was a bug against src:dpkg asking for "3.0 (native)" to allow packages with Debian

Bug#1007717: Native source package format with non-native version

2022-03-15 Thread Felix Lechner
Hi Ian, On Tue, Mar 15, 2022 at 11:54 AM Ian Jackson wrote: > > I do remember this coming up > before, but I don't seem to be able to find a record of it now. Perhaps you were thinking about this discussion in a bug against Lintian? Ideally I would like dpkg-source to permit source format `3.0

Bug#1007717: Native source package format with non-native version

2022-03-15 Thread Lucas Nussbaum
Hi, First, some context with numbers: Source packages in testing: 32247 Source packages in testing using 3.0 (native): 690 (2.1%) Source packages in testing using 3.0 (quilt): 30937 (95.9%) Source packages in testing using 1.0: 620 (1.9%) Those 620 packages probably fit in two categories: A)