Hi!
On Fri, 2010-03-26 at 09:25:38 +0100, Raphael Hertzog wrote:
On Fri, 26 Mar 2010, Neil Williams wrote:
Now all I need is for dpkg to accept that the absence of
debian/source/format is declarative of source format 1.0.
That's the case _for now_.
packages don't need to be changed
On Wed, Mar 31, 2010 at 09:01:31AM -0400, James Vega wrote:
On Wed, Mar 31, 2010 at 08:47:28PM +0900, Osamu Aoki wrote:
Hi,
On Wed, Mar 31, 2010 at 11:18:30AM +0200, Raphael Hertzog wrote:
On Wed, 31 Mar 2010, Niels Thykier wrote:
That being said, I would (as it is now) actually
On Tue, 30 Mar 2010, Sven Mueller wrote:
Julien BLACHE schrieb:
Raphael Hertzog hert...@debian.org wrote:
I expect this to be of particular interest when we'll have VCS-powered
source formats (say 3.0 (git2quilt)) that generate source packages that
are plain 3.0 (quilt) based on the
James Westby jw+deb...@jameswestby.net writes:
The unpacked source package has no format, it's a directory on disk
with certain properties. You could take that directory and produce a
source package in any number of formats.
The debian/source/format is then not a declaration of what format
Le mercredi 31 mars 2010 à 08:18 +0200, Raphael Hertzog a écrit :
I agree. dpkg-dev should not be depending on any VCS and it should not
promote any particular VCS either. I know that git is the new black (oh,
wait, that was something else), but I personally don't like it. And I
Josselin Mouette wrote:
Le mercredi 31 mars 2010 à 08:18 +0200, Raphael Hertzog a écrit :
I agree. dpkg-dev should not be depending on any VCS and it should not
promote any particular VCS either. I know that git is the new black (oh,
wait, that was something else), but I personally don't like
On Wed, 31 Mar 2010, Niels Thykier wrote:
That being said, I would (as it is now) actually prefer that it was
just a helper tool that from a VCS could derive a source package of
existing format. That would probably also increase the adoption rate,
since existing tools would work with those
Hi,
On Wed, Mar 31, 2010 at 11:18:30AM +0200, Raphael Hertzog wrote:
On Wed, 31 Mar 2010, Niels Thykier wrote:
That being said, I would (as it is now) actually prefer that it was
just a helper tool that from a VCS could derive a source package of
existing format. That would probably also
On Wed, Mar 31, 2010 at 08:47:28PM +0900, Osamu Aoki wrote:
Hi,
On Wed, Mar 31, 2010 at 11:18:30AM +0200, Raphael Hertzog wrote:
On Wed, 31 Mar 2010, Niels Thykier wrote:
That being said, I would (as it is now) actually prefer that it was
just a helper tool that from a VCS could
Steve Langasek wrote:
On Thu, Mar 25, 2010 at 02:03:09PM +0100, Raphael Hertzog wrote:
[...]
In the general case, switching is a small effort for sure, but in the case
pointed out by Neil (he won't convert packages with no patches because he
doesn't see the benefit) the effort is almost null,
On 30 March 2010 16:46, Sven Mueller deb...@incase.de wrote:
My main reason for not yet switching is that hg-buildpackage and
svn-buildpackage don't completely support the 3.0 format yet as far as I
can tell.
You can try out mercurial-buildpackage, where I have tried to support
3.0 (quilt) as
Ben Finney schrieb:
Raphael Hertzog hert...@debian.org writes:
There's a default value currently and it's 1.0, and I want to remove
the existence of a default value in the long term because it does not
make sense to have a default value corresponding to a source format
that is no longer
Julien BLACHE schrieb:
Raphael Hertzog hert...@debian.org wrote:
I expect this to be of particular interest when we'll have VCS-powered
source formats (say 3.0 (git2quilt)) that generate source packages that
are plain 3.0 (quilt) based on the git repository information.
This is becoming
Sven Mueller wrote:
(for example in changing silently to native package format if the
orig.tar.gz is missing)
That's not true is it? At least, if I use 'debuild' I get a pretty big
warning if the orig.tar.gz is missing.
snip
$ apt-get source acct
$ rm acct_6.5.1.orig.tar.gz
$ debuild
This
Sven Mueller deb...@incase.de writes:
Ben Finney schrieb:
Any future formats will be unambiguously distinguishable. Those
format-undeclared source packages can't be eradicated from the earth
entirely. So why not simply declare that they are source format 1.0,
as is without changes, and
On Wed, 31 Mar 2010 12:29:01 +1100, Ben Finney ben+deb...@benfinney.id.au
wrote:
Specifically, a behaviour of *recognising* that a package is in source
format 1.0. That's a fact of that package in that state, that shouldn't
change just because time has passed.
In other words, a source
On Sun, Mar 28, 2010 at 09:02:24AM +0200, Christian PERRIER wrote:
I'm surprised by the resistance I see to these changes. I see the
approach pushed by dpkg maintainers as fairly conservative with very
progressive changes to existing packages and much respect for people
who don't want to
Ben Finney ben+deb...@benfinney.id.au wrote:
Hi,
The problem is that if debian/source/format is missing for one reason
or another, your package will be silently built as a 1.0 source
package.
There's no need for it to be silent. The idea was raised that, after a
period of silent
On Mon, 29 Mar 2010, Julien BLACHE wrote:
FWIW I think debian/source/format sucks big time and its content should
be moved to debian/control.
Actually it's a design decision to put it outside of the control file:
it's easier to create/modify/discard automatically when needed.
I expect this to
Raphael Hertzog hert...@debian.org wrote:
I expect this to be of particular interest when we'll have VCS-powered
source formats (say 3.0 (git2quilt)) that generate source packages that
are plain 3.0 (quilt) based on the git repository information.
This is becoming crazy, really.
JB.
--
Wouter Verhelst schrieb:
I might want to have a file with 1.0 (non-native) to have dpkg error
out when I accidentally don't have a .orig.tar.gz file somewhere, for
instance. As long as the absense of that file does not make things
suddenly break, I don't think there's anything wrong with that.
Sven Mueller s...@debian.org writes:
Wouter Verhelst schrieb:
Of course, this all conveniently ignores the fact that the above
explicit non-native option isn't actually supported, which is
unfortunate...
Didn't check for this: Is a bug open to request such a feature to
explicitly say 1.0
Quoting Steve Langasek (vor...@debian.org):
(following up on Steve's mail but that's more a summary of my own
feelings about this topic)
Fundamentally, I don't think that's a responsible decision for the dpkg
maintainers to make. You're making busywork for maintainers, and conflict
for
On Sat, 27 Mar 2010, Steve Langasek wrote:
make all the developers manually add this file now so that, at some
point when all packages have the file, the default can be changed and a
different set of packages can remove the file again.
During the discussion in this thread I realized that
Raphael Hertzog hert...@debian.org writes:
Instead what I want is to remove the default altogether so that 1.0 is
no longer implicitly blessed/recommended.
As far as I can understand, this is entirely compatible with “absence of
‘debian/source/format’ always means the package is in “1.0”
]] Christian Perrier
[...]
| The next debate to have will come when it's time to change the default
| behaviour of dpkg-source. That debate has been mixed into the current
| discussion and is probably what makes it quite hairy It is very
| obviously controversial to decide when to change
On Sun, 28 Mar 2010, Ben Finney wrote:
Raphael Hertzog hert...@debian.org writes:
Instead what I want is to remove the default altogether so that 1.0 is
no longer implicitly blessed/recommended.
As far as I can understand, this is entirely compatible with “absence of
Ben Finney ben+deb...@benfinney.id.au wrote:
Hi,
As far as I can understand, this is entirely compatible with “absence of
‘debian/source/format’ always means the package is in “1.0” source
The problem is that if debian/source/format is missing for one reason or
another, your package will be
#include hallo.h
* Raphael Hertzog [Sun, Mar 28 2010, 10:51:38AM]:
As far as I can understand, this is entirely compatible with “absence of
‘debian/source/format’ always means the package is in “1.0” source
format” since that has no implication that “1.0” is blessed or
recommended in any
On Sun, 28 Mar 2010, Eduard Bloch wrote:
I, for one, consider abusing Lintian checks for recommendations a very
bad idea. Especially if you use _warnings_ for that. To warn about what?
To warn about future failures once dpkg-source fails when there's no
debian/source/format.
Cheers,
--
Raphael Hertzog hert...@debian.org writes:
On Sun, 28 Mar 2010, Ben Finney wrote:
As far as I can understand, this is entirely compatible with
“absence of ‘debian/source/format’ always means the package is in
“1.0” source format” since that has no implication that “1.0” is
blessed or
Julien BLACHE jbla...@debian.org writes:
The problem is that if debian/source/format is missing for one reason
or another, your package will be silently built as a 1.0 source
package.
There's no need for it to be silent. The idea was raised that, after a
period of silent deprecation, the
On Thu, Mar 25, 2010 at 09:28:58PM +, Neil Williams wrote:
Again from Wouter's comments:
It is of course perfectly fine for dpkg-source to error out if it
detects that things are not completely in order, or if it detects that
features were requested that are not supported with the source
On Fri, Mar 26, 2010 at 09:25:38AM +0100, Raphael Hertzog wrote:
On Fri, 26 Mar 2010, Neil Williams wrote:
Now all I need is for dpkg to accept that the absence of
debian/source/format is declarative of source format 1.0.
That's the case _for now_.
packages don't need to be changed
On Sun, Mar 28, 2010 at 8:42 AM, Steve Langasek vor...@debian.org wrote:
If what you care about is the format used by *new* packages, I think you
should focus on making sure the templates maintainers are using (such as
dh-make) set the desired default explicitly. That would have an
On Thu, 25 Mar 2010 17:30:28 -0700
Russ Allbery r...@debian.org wrote:
this at this point. I've changed the severity to wishlist instead,
which I think more accurately reflects the current severity of this
request.
That's fair.
N: missing-debian-source-format
N:
N: To allow for
On Thu, 25 Mar 2010, Steve Langasek wrote:
If it's really so important to the dpkg maintainers that source format 1.0
is declared, why doesn't dpkg-source -b *generate* this content
automatically as part of the .diff.gz so that maintainers aren't being asked
to take a manual action to assert
On Fri, 26 Mar 2010, Neil Williams wrote:
Now all I need is for dpkg to accept that the absence of
debian/source/format is declarative of source format 1.0.
That's the case _for now_.
packages don't need to be changed merely to state the obvious.
They need because the dpkg maintainers have
Raphael Hertzog a écrit :
Note that the lintian message specifically requests to contact us if you
decide to stick with 1.0 for such a technical reason. That's done that way
so that I can help resolve those problems. No later than this morning I
contacted the launchpad guys to allow new source
On Fri, 26 Mar 2010, Stéphane Glondu wrote:
Raphael Hertzog a écrit :
Note that the lintian message specifically requests to contact us if you
decide to stick with 1.0 for such a technical reason. That's done that way
so that I can help resolve those problems. No later than this morning I
Raphael Hertzog hert...@debian.org writes:
On Fri, 26 Mar 2010, Neil Williams wrote:
Now all I need is for dpkg to accept that the absence of
debian/source/format is declarative of source format 1.0.
That's the case _for now_.
You seem to imply that the meaning of the above situation is
On Fri, 26 Mar 2010 09:17:30 +0100, Raphael Hertzog
hert...@debian.org wrote:
My goal as dpkg maintainer is that Debian converts the maximum number of
source packages to the new source formats in the shortest timeframe. (You
might not share this goal but that's another matter)
Do you really need
On Fri Mar 26 10:11, Marc Haber wrote:
On Fri, 26 Mar 2010 09:17:30 +0100, Raphael Hertzog
hert...@debian.org wrote:
My goal as dpkg maintainer is that Debian converts the maximum number of
source packages to the new source formats in the shortest timeframe. (You
might not share this goal but
On Thu, Mar 25, 2010 at 05:19:41PM +0100, Benjamin Drung wrote:
Why is there no dak and wanna-build package? Are there plans to create
such packages?
There used to be a dak package but it ended up lagging very badly behind
the actual dak code because it needed some database schema upgrades as
On Thu, Mar 25, 2010 at 11:13:01AM -0700, Russ Allbery wrote:
The long tag description probably could be improved to make it clearer
that the intention isn't to be a cudgel.
Unfortunately pretty much any lintian warning ends up being a cudgel if
it's enabled by default since zero lintian
On Thu, Mar 25, 2010 at 05:19:41PM +0100, Benjamin Drung wrote:
Am Donnerstag, den 25.03.2010, 16:16 + schrieb Philipp Kern:
On 2010-03-25, Josselin Mouette j...@debian.org wrote:
I’d expect it to be much smoother for an organization that uses Debian
tools and works with us to add
On Fri, 26 Mar 2010 10:32:21 +
Mark Brown broo...@sirena.org.uk wrote:
On Thu, Mar 25, 2010 at 11:13:01AM -0700, Russ Allbery wrote:
The long tag description probably could be improved to make it clearer
that the intention isn't to be a cudgel.
Unfortunately pretty much any lintian
On 25/03/2010 20:12, Raphael Hertzog wrote:
- I'm still undecided whether I will change the default format in
dpkg-source but obviously once all packages provide
debian/source/format, I will be able to make the change without much bad
impact.
What is the use case of a default format if
Raphael Hertzog schrieb am Friday, den 26. March 2010:
On Fri, 26 Mar 2010, Stéphane Glondu wrote:
Raphael Hertzog a écrit :
Note that the lintian message specifically requests to contact us if you
decide to stick with 1.0 for such a technical reason. That's done that way
so that I
On Fri, 26 Mar 2010, Vincent Danjean wrote:
What is the use case of a default format if all packages provide
debian/source/format ?
The default source format is required for backwards compatibility. I can't
simply make the build fail if debian/source/format doesn't exist!
But you're right that
Raphael Hertzog hert...@debian.org writes:
I don't see any significant difference in the wording,
Excellent, then I succeeded. If the people who were upset think it's
better and you don't see a difference, that's exactly the balance that I
was trying to strike.
the major change is the
OoO En ce début de soirée du jeudi 25 mars 2010, vers 21:06, Neil
Williams codeh...@debian.org disait :
Removing the tag without fixing dpkg to not require
debian/source/format for source format 1.0 packages. That bug does need
to be fixed. I've only altered a few of my packages in SVN
Hi,
Responding to
http://www.linux.codehelp.co.uk/serendipity/index.php?/archives/201-lintian,-source-format-3.0-and-blog-comments.html:
1/ Instead of taking 30 minutes to explain why you don't care of the new
formats, it would have been way more useful to apply the patch
sitting in
On Thu, Mar 25, 2010 at 12:49:55PM +0100, Raphael Hertzog wrote:
2/ You explain that you have no reason to switch to the new formats. Fine.
I have explained you that I believe there are good reasons for
switching (I won't repeat the wiki page). Why are you insisting to not
switch when
On Thu, Mar 25, 2010 at 12:49:55PM +0100, Raphael Hertzog wrote:
Hi,
Responding to
http://www.linux.codehelp.co.uk/serendipity/index.php?/archives/201-lintian,-source-format-3.0-and-blog-comments.html:
Thanks, Raphael, for bringing this to a proper place!
1/ Instead of taking 30 minutes
Mike Hommey wrote:
On Thu, Mar 25, 2010 at 12:49:55PM +0100, Raphael Hertzog wrote:
2/ You explain that you have no reason to switch to the new formats. Fine.
I have explained you that I believe there are good reasons for
switching (I won't repeat the wiki page). Why are you insisting to
On Thu, Mar 25, 2010 at 01:24:17PM +0100, Mehdi Dogguy wrote:
Mike Hommey wrote:
On Thu, Mar 25, 2010 at 12:49:55PM +0100, Raphael Hertzog wrote:
2/ You explain that you have no reason to switch to the new formats. Fine.
I have explained you that I believe there are good reasons for
Mike Hommey wrote:
On Thu, Mar 25, 2010 at 01:24:17PM +0100, Mehdi Dogguy wrote:
[…]
Besides, may I remind you the existence of this page
http://wiki.debian.org/ReleaseGoals/NewDebFormats ?
May I remind that several persons pointed out this was not a good goal ?
This is not a reason to
On Thu, Mar 25, 2010 at 12:58:39PM +0100, Mike Hommey wrote:
Why are you insisting that all DDs should switch when switching is an
effort for no benefit[1] and not switching is no effort at all ?
In fact, I don't feel this is the point [1]. The new lintian warning,
which triggered the various
On Thu, 25 Mar 2010, Mike Hommey wrote:
On Thu, Mar 25, 2010 at 12:49:55PM +0100, Raphael Hertzog wrote:
2/ You explain that you have no reason to switch to the new formats. Fine.
I have explained you that I believe there are good reasons for
switching (I won't repeat the wiki page).
On Thu, Mar 25, 2010 at 02:03:09PM +0100, Raphael Hertzog wrote:
On Thu, 25 Mar 2010, Mike Hommey wrote:
On Thu, Mar 25, 2010 at 12:49:55PM +0100, Raphael Hertzog wrote:
2/ You explain that you have no reason to switch to the new formats. Fine.
I have explained you that I believe there
Le jeudi 25 mars 2010 à 06:36 -0700, Steve Langasek a écrit :
Which derivative distribution has asked for this? Speaking with my Ubuntu
hat on, the sudden arrival of 3.0 in sid (yes, we knew it was coming
eventually, but had no inkling of a probable timeline until it was already
done) has
On Thu, 25 Mar 2010, Steve Langasek wrote:
And the lintian warning goes away by explicitly setting source format to 1,
so that's not standardizing on the set of improved source formats
/anyway/, that's just nagging maintainers to make a change to their packages
that AFAICS only helps your real
On Thu, Mar 25, 2010 at 03:39:11PM +0100, Josselin Mouette wrote:
Le jeudi 25 mars 2010 à 06:36 -0700, Steve Langasek a écrit :
Which derivative distribution has asked for this? Speaking with my Ubuntu
hat on, the sudden arrival of 3.0 in sid (yes, we knew it was coming
eventually, but had
On Thu, Mar 25, 2010 at 04:07:59PM +0100, Raphael Hertzog wrote:
For zless, people seem to open the debian.tar with vim or similar but I
can understand that it's less usable than a simple pager view of the
relevant files. Maybe it's a good idea to provide a debreview/debinspect
command in
Le jeudi 25 mars 2010 à 08:40 -0700, Steve Langasek a écrit :
While it is interesting to know that the lack of Ubuntu involvement into
Debian can also lead to major breakage on your side,
But even if the fault lies entirely with Ubuntu and you think Ubuntu is evil
and should be disregarded
On 2010-03-25, Josselin Mouette j...@debian.org wrote:
I’d expect it to be much smoother for an organization that uses Debian
tools and works with us to add missing functionality in them if needed,
than for an organization that uses its own tools.
You seriously don't want to force dak upon
Am Donnerstag, den 25.03.2010, 16:16 + schrieb Philipp Kern:
On 2010-03-25, Josselin Mouette j...@debian.org wrote:
I’d expect it to be much smoother for an organization that uses Debian
tools and works with us to add missing functionality in them if needed,
than for an organization
Benjamin Drung bdr...@ubuntu.com wrote:
Hi,
Why is there no dak and wanna-build package? Are there plans to create
such packages?
Have you ever tried to install dak?
If you have, then the answer should be obvious to you. If you haven't,
try it someday, and you'll understand.
JB.
--
Am Donnerstag, den 25.03.2010, 17:57 +0100 schrieb Julien BLACHE:
Benjamin Drung bdr...@ubuntu.com wrote:
Hi,
Why is there no dak and wanna-build package? Are there plans to create
such packages?
Have you ever tried to install dak?
No.
If you have, then the answer should be obvious
Benjamin Drung bdr...@ubuntu.com wrote:
Hi,
Is there a plan for making the installation of dak easier?
The issue (if there actually is an issue there, which is debatable) is
not so much that dak is hard to install (because it's such a beast and
the documentation isn't exactly stellar) but
On Thu, Mar 25, 2010 at 05:19:41PM +0100, Benjamin Drung wrote:
Why is there no dak and wanna-build package? Are there plans to create
such packages?
This does not truly answer your question, but since my theory would
be unpleasant to the members of core teams, I offer you this instead:
Stefano Zacchiroli z...@debian.org writes:
On Thu, Mar 25, 2010 at 12:58:39PM +0100, Mike Hommey wrote:
Why are you insisting that all DDs should switch when switching is an
effort for no benefit[1] and not switching is no effort at all ?
In fact, I don't feel this is the point [1]. The new
Steve Langasek vor...@debian.org writes:
And the lintian warning goes away by explicitly setting source format to
1, so that's not standardizing on the set of improved source formats
/anyway/, that's just nagging maintainers to make a change to their
packages that AFAICS only helps your real
On Thu, 25 Mar 2010, Russ Allbery wrote:
Steve Langasek vor...@debian.org writes:
And the lintian warning goes away by explicitly setting source format to
1, so that's not standardizing on the set of improved source formats
/anyway/, that's just nagging maintainers to make a change to
Russ Allbery wrote:
Yes. I explicitly declined to add a Lintian tag warning about all use of
format 1.0 because I don't believe there's consensus to deprecate it. But
the request to note the format explicitly seemed reasonable to me.
I disagree - my packages are in source format 1, I should
Colin Tuckley col...@debian.org writes:
Russ Allbery wrote:
Yes. I explicitly declined to add a Lintian tag warning about all use
of format 1.0 because I don't believe there's consensus to deprecate
it. But the request to note the format explicitly seemed reasonable to
me.
I disagree -
Hi,
On Thu, Mar 25, 2010 at 11:10:39AM -0700, Russ Allbery wrote:
Yes. I explicitly declined to add a Lintian tag warning about all use of
format 1.0 because I don't believe there's consensus to deprecate it. But
the request to note the format explicitly seemed reasonable to me.
I think in
Hi,
Russ Allbery r...@debian.org (25/03/2010):
Well, certainly the goal of Lintian is not to produce tags for which
the project consensus is that nothing should be done about. If
people don't feel like this is a good idea, we can remove it. It
made sense to me personally, but that isn't a
On Thu, 25 Mar 2010 12:42:20 -0700
Russ Allbery r...@debian.org wrote:
Colin Tuckley col...@debian.org writes:
I wasn't going to contribute to this thread but the initial bun fight
seems to have calmed down and people are starting to talk sense. I'll
do everything I can to keep it that way by
On Thu, 25 Mar 2010, Simon Richter wrote:
On Thu, Mar 25, 2010 at 11:10:39AM -0700, Russ Allbery wrote:
Yes. I explicitly declined to add a Lintian tag warning about all use of
format 1.0 because I don't believe there's consensus to deprecate it. But
the request to note the format
On Thu, 25 Mar 2010, Neil Williams wrote:
Agreed, although I think the real bug is in dpkg not being able to
cope without a new file.
In what way dpkg doesn't cope?
The change requested by the lintian tag is preventive, not corrective.
The idea that all source packages are going to have to
On Thu, 25 Mar 2010 21:42:59 +0100
Raphael Hertzog hert...@debian.org wrote:
On Thu, 25 Mar 2010, Neil Williams wrote:
Agreed, although I think the real bug is in dpkg not being able to
cope without a new file.
In what way dpkg doesn't cope?
I'm not sure, I got that impression -
Raphael Hertzog hert...@debian.org writes:
On Thu, 25 Mar 2010, Neil Williams wrote:
debian/source/format, I'll override the lintian warning until dpkg
is fixed. (Already done that for a few packages.)
Doing that means “I don't want to hardcode the format to use, I want
to use whatever
Raphael Hertzog hert...@debian.org wrote:
There might be not short term benefit for the current maintainer, but
it's a benefit for our derivatives distributions to be able to simply add
patches in a consistent manner. It will also be a benefit for Debian if in
2 years some newbie packager
I revisited both the Lintian tag and the long description in light of this
discussion and some private feedback, and for the next release of Lintian
have tentatively made the following changes:
* The tag was previously severity: normal. Lintian tag severities should
match bug severities were
On Fri, Mar 26, 2010 at 08:47:22AM +1100, Ben Finney wrote:
Raphael Hertzog hert...@debian.org writes:
On Thu, 25 Mar 2010, Neil Williams wrote:
debian/source/format, I'll override the lintian warning until dpkg
is fixed. (Already done that for a few packages.)
Doing that means “I
87 matches
Mail list logo
