Am Wed, May 04, 2022 at 08:02:51AM +0200 schrieb Johannes Schauer Marin
Rodrigues:
> During my last round of mass-rebuilds I unfortunately didn't apply this
> heuristic and stumbled across src:ants. In contrast to Andreas, I think that
> even packages without a maintainer upload for >10 years
Hi,
Quoting Andreas Tille (2022-03-21 11:55:09)
> Am Sat, Mar 19, 2022 at 08:37:28PM +0100 schrieb Erik Schanze:
> > Am 16.03.22 um 14:11 schrieb Andreas Tille:
> > > was not uploaded by its maintainer for >10 years.
> >
> > Yes, because upstream development was finished and packaging was
Hello,
On Tue 29 Mar 2022 at 08:50AM +02, Lucas Nussbaum wrote:
> On 28/03/22 at 16:03 -0700, Sean Whitton wrote:
>> Hello,
>>
>> On Tue 15 Mar 2022 at 06:26PM +01, Lucas Nussbaum wrote:
>>
>> > On 15/03/22 at 15:36 +, Ian Jackson wrote:
>> >> At least the following packages of which I am
On 28/03/22 at 16:03 -0700, Sean Whitton wrote:
> Hello,
>
> On Tue 15 Mar 2022 at 06:26PM +01, Lucas Nussbaum wrote:
>
> > On 15/03/22 at 15:36 +, Ian Jackson wrote:
> >> At least the following packages of which I am the maintainer or
> >> sponsor were includined in the MBF, despite the
Hello,
On Tue 15 Mar 2022 at 06:26PM +01, Lucas Nussbaum wrote:
> On 15/03/22 at 15:36 +, Ian Jackson wrote:
>> At least the following packages of which I am the maintainer or
>> sponsor were includined in the MBF, despite the fact that they are 1.0
>> native packages with Debian revision:
Hello,
On Tue 15 Mar 2022 at 11:46AM +01, Julien Cristau wrote:
> On Sun, Mar 13, 2022 at 02:58:31PM -0700, Sean Whitton wrote:
>> Hello,
>>
>> On Wed 09 Mar 2022 at 05:15PM +01, Lucas Nussbaum wrote:
>>
>> > On 09/03/22 at 08:52 -0700, Sean Whitton wrote:
>> >> On Wed 09 Mar 2022 at 01:08pm
Hi Erik,
Am Sat, Mar 19, 2022 at 08:37:28PM +0100 schrieb Erik Schanze:
> Am 16.03.22 um 14:11 schrieb Andreas Tille:
> > I'm not sure whether there are any PalmPilot devices out there. At
>
> Yes, there are still such devices out there.
Thanks a lot for your insight.
> > least the actual
Bastian Blank writes:
> On Wed, Mar 09, 2022 at 01:08:59PM +0100, Lucas Nussbaum wrote:
>> can we find a middleground where the git workflows don't require staying
>> with 1.0? Even if that means switching to 3.0 (quilt) using the
>> single-debian-patch approach?
>
> Well. There is a specific
Hi Andreas, hi all,
[I'm not subscribed to d-d, the long discussions on d-p are enough for
my inbox ;-), so please address me directly if I should read your reply]
Am 16.03.22 um 14:11 schrieb Andreas Tille:
I'm not sure whether there are any PalmPilot devices out there. At
Yes, there are
]] Matthew Vernon
> Andrey Rahmatullin writes:
>
> > On Tue, Mar 15, 2022 at 08:54:50AM +, Matthew Vernon wrote:
> >> It's probably unfashionable, but I think debian/patches is not a great
> >> way to manage changes, particularly if you're using a VCS for
> >> maintaining your packages. As
Hi Adrian,
Am Wed, Mar 16, 2022 at 10:48:12PM +0200 schrieb Adrian Bunk:
> On Wed, Mar 16, 2022 at 02:11:09PM +0100, Andreas Tille wrote:
> >...
> > I'm not sure whether there are any PalmPilot devices out there. At
> > least the actual *votes* in popcon[1] is down to zero now.
>
> This is less
On Wed, Mar 16, 2022 at 02:11:09PM +0100, Andreas Tille wrote:
>...
> I'm not sure whether there are any PalmPilot devices out there. At
> least the actual *votes* in popcon[1] is down to zero now.
This is less convincing than it sounds, since popcon data is based only
on a tiny and
Hi,
the MBF announcement inspired me to check some packages that might be
relevant for me (and started fixing these). I also found some packages
where I was asking myself whether these might be interesting for anyone.
Just to give some example (maintainer in CC - Erik, its not specifically
Lucas Nussbaum dixit:
>column on https://udd.debian.org/cgi-bin/format10.cgi )
I’m apparently affected at least for cvs, but that package has
another very interesting use case for format 1.0:
Its .diff.gz file can *directly* be used as patch file in no less
than *two* other packaging systems
On Mon, 14 Mar 2022 13:52:14 +, Holger Levsen
wrote:
> On Mon, Mar 14, 2022 at 01:10:19PM +, Wookey wrote:
> > > You're trying to produce packages from CI builds or other automation
> > > where you sometimes have native Debian revisions.
> > >
> > > * you are producing a package where
Guillem Jover writes ("Re: proposed MBF: packages still using source format
1.0"):
> Something I might want to see though (although I hold not much hope
> for) is a possible move away from the default behavior when no
> debian/source/format is present, as I think that
Hi!
On Tue, 2022-03-15 at 15:36:48 +, Ian Jackson wrote:
> However, given that I perceive that:
> - there is a campaign to abolish 1.0
> - there are important use cases where 1.0 is needed
> - the campaign to abolish 1.0 is being prosecuted anyway
> I have deliberately chosen to
Hi,
On 15/03/22 at 09:29 -0700, Sean Whitton wrote:
> > What the are the packages for which you are surprised that bugs were
> > filed? I wonder which part of the criteria was too loose.
>
> It looks like the query didn't do quite what was intended, indeed:
> src:userv-utils is maintained in git
Hi,
On 15/03/22 at 15:36 +, Ian Jackson wrote:
> At least the following packages of which I am the maintainer or
> sponsor were includined in the MBF, despite the fact that they are 1.0
> native packages with Debian revision:
>
>its-playback-time
>spigot
>vm
>vtwm
>chroma
Hello,
On Tue 15 Mar 2022 at 04:16pm +01, Lucas Nussbaum wrote:
> On 15/03/22 at 10:36 +, Ian Jackson wrote:
>> Answers were given, including by a former DPL (whom you may observe
>> is not someone I am on speaking terms with).
>>
>> But I see now that the MBF has gone ahead anyway.
>>
>> I
On 3/15/22 10:36, Ian Jackson wrote:
Lucas Nussbaum writes ("Re: proposed MBF: packages still using source format
1.0"):
As explained in https://lists.debian.org/debian-devel/2022/03/msg00165.html
I proceeded with the MBF for packages that match
not (debian_x or (vcs and vcs_status
Lucas Nussbaum writes ("Re: proposed MBF: packages still using source format
1.0"):
> As explained in https://lists.debian.org/debian-devel/2022/03/msg00165.html
> I proceeded with the MBF for packages that match
> not (debian_x or (vcs and vcs_status != 'ERROR' and direct_ch
On 15/03/22 at 10:36 +, Ian Jackson wrote:
> Answers were given, including by a former DPL (whom you may observe
> is not someone I am on speaking terms with).
>
> But I see now that the MBF has gone ahead anyway.
>
> I spent some time trying to help by setting out the factual
> background,
On Tue, Mar 15, 2022 at 10:46:10AM +, Ian Jackson wrote:
> Ian Jackson writes ("Re: proposed MBF: packages still using source format
> 1.0"):
> > But I see now that the MBF has gone ahead anyway.
> For example, consider a package maintained by a sponsee of mine:
&g
Hi,
On Tue, Mar 15, 2022 at 3:46 AM Ian Jackson
wrote:
>
> Debian is not upstream, so it has a Debian revision. The package is
> maintained in git, and the source package is very small and it is not
> uploaded frequently. So we use a native source format. This means
> that we must use format
On Wed, Mar 09, 2022 at 01:08:59PM +0100, Lucas Nussbaum wrote:
> can we find a middleground where the git workflows don't require staying
> with 1.0? Even if that means switching to 3.0 (quilt) using the
> single-debian-patch approach?
Well. There is a specific source format now for full git
Andrey Rahmatullin writes:
> On Tue, Mar 15, 2022 at 10:49:17AM +, Matthew Vernon wrote:
>> but even if it were, is that an entirely unreasonable position for a
>> package maintainer (or team thereof) to take?
> Probably not? Just yet another case where you need to learn a specific
>
On Tue, Mar 15, 2022 at 10:49:17AM +, Matthew Vernon wrote:
> >> It's probably unfashionable, but I think debian/patches is not a great
> >> way to manage changes, particularly if you're using a VCS for
> >> maintaining your packages. As others have pointed out in this thread,
> >> doing this
On Sun, Mar 13, 2022 at 02:58:31PM -0700, Sean Whitton wrote:
> Hello,
>
> On Wed 09 Mar 2022 at 05:15PM +01, Lucas Nussbaum wrote:
>
> > On 09/03/22 at 08:52 -0700, Sean Whitton wrote:
> >> On Wed 09 Mar 2022 at 01:08pm +01, Lucas Nussbaum wrote:
> >> > Also, how would that work with packages
Andrey Rahmatullin writes:
> On Tue, Mar 15, 2022 at 08:54:50AM +, Matthew Vernon wrote:
>> It's probably unfashionable, but I think debian/patches is not a great
>> way to manage changes, particularly if you're using a VCS for
>> maintaining your packages. As others have pointed out in this
Ian Jackson writes ("Re: proposed MBF: packages still using source format 1.0"):
> But I see now that the MBF has gone ahead anyway.
>
> I spent some time trying to help by setting out the factual
> background, but it seems that Debian is not interested in facts. I
>
Ian Jackson writes ("Re: proposed MBF: packages still using source format 1.0"):
> Sean Whitton writes ("Re: proposed MBF: packages still using source format
> 1.0"):
> > [questions]
...
>
> The situation here is complicated.
>
>
> The tl;dr is
On Tue, Mar 15, 2022 at 08:54:50AM +, Matthew Vernon wrote:
> It's probably unfashionable, but I think debian/patches is not a great
> way to manage changes, particularly if you're using a VCS for
> maintaining your packages. As others have pointed out in this thread,
> doing this means you
Hi,
Lucas Nussbaum writes:
[bit late to this thread; came here when I got some MBF bugs and saw
"make them Severity: serious..." in the linked mail. I think in this
case use of source format 1.0 isn't against policy, _shouldn't_ be
against policy (or at least, not in all cases), and that de
Hi,
> I think we can all agree upon bumping the lintian severity to
> warning.
I am not sure there is unanimous support. Instead, I would like to
propose the following compromise (as I have before).
> 1.0 native is sometimes better than 3.0 (native) because dpkg-source
> refuses to build a 3.0
On Mon, Mar 14, 2022 at 01:10:19PM +, Wookey wrote:
> > You're trying to produce packages from CI builds or other automation
> > where you sometimes have native Debian revisions.
> >
> > * you are producing a package where you have distinct upstream and
> > debian branches, and you cannot
On 2022-03-10 12:09 -0700, Sam Hartman wrote:
> > "Steve" == Steve McIntyre writes:
>
> Steve> Why on earth *would* you mess around using Debian revisions
> Steve> on a native-format package, though?
>
> You're trying to produce packages from CI builds or other automation
> where
> "Guillem" == Guillem Jover writes:
Guillem> On Thu, 2022-03-10 at 12:09:14 -0700, Sam Hartman wrote:
>> You're trying to produce packages from CI builds or other
>> automation where you sometimes have native Debian revisions.
>>
>> * you are producing a package where
Hello,
On Wed 09 Mar 2022 at 05:15PM +01, Lucas Nussbaum wrote:
> On 09/03/22 at 08:52 -0700, Sean Whitton wrote:
>> On Wed 09 Mar 2022 at 01:08pm +01, Lucas Nussbaum wrote:
>> > Also, how would that work with packages that combine direct changes to
>> > upstream, and quilt for Debian-created
Hello Ian,
Thank you for the summary, which helped refresh my memory.
On Wed 09 Mar 2022 at 04:38PM GMT, Ian Jackson wrote:
> 1. Why is 1.0-without-diff not always worse than 3.0 (native) ?
>
> 1.0 native is sometimes better than 3.0 (native) because dpkg-source
> refuses to build a 3.0 native
Hi Lucas,
On Sun, Mar 06, 2022 at 09:25:45PM +0100, Lucas Nussbaum wrote:
> There are 629 packages in bookworm that use source format 1.0. That's 1.9% of
> bookworm packages.
many thanks for filing these bugs and even more thanks for filing them with
severity wishlist! I've just read one bug
On Thu, 2022-03-10 at 12:09:14 -0700, Sam Hartman wrote:
> You're trying to produce packages from CI builds or other automation
> where you sometimes have native Debian revisions.
>
> * you are producing a package where you have distinct upstream and
> debian branches, and you cannot control
Hi!
[ But, this one again… ]
On Thu, 2022-03-10 at 18:17:15 +, Steve McIntyre wrote:
> Why on earth *would* you mess around using Debian revisions on a
> native-format package, though? IMHO it's pointless and is just going
> to confuse people. Unless you can explain a good reason to need
On Thu, Mar 10, 2022 at 09:49:50PM +0100, Lucas Nussbaum wrote:
>...
> For packages in (1.1) and (1.2), I propose to file Severity: wishlist
> bugs using the following template:
>
> -->8
> Subject: please consider upgrading to 3.0 source format
On 10/03/22 at 23:23 +0200, Adrian Bunk wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 10, 2022 at 09:49:50PM +0100, Lucas Nussbaum wrote:
> >...
> > For packages in (1.1) and (1.2), I propose to file Severity: wishlist
> > bugs using the following template:
> >
> > -->8
On 10/03/22 at 21:49 +0100, Lucas Nussbaum wrote:
> https://udd.debian.org/cgi-bin/format10.cgi provides the list of
> packages for each category. The packages count is currently:
> (1.1): 53 packages
> (1.2): 424 packages
> (2): 149 packages
Actually it's:
(1.1): 60 packages
(1.2): 431 packages
Hi,
Based on the discussion, I propose the following:
Let's split the 626 packages in bookworm that use source format 1.0 into
three categories (1.1), (1.2), (2):
(1) packages with are very unlikely to use a VCS-based workflow (not
maintained by Debian X; not using a VCS; or referring to a
> "Steve" == Steve McIntyre writes:
Steve> Ian Jackson wrote:
>>
>> 1. Why is 1.0-without-diff not always worse than 3.0 (native) ?
>>
>> 1.0 native is sometimes better than 3.0 (native) because
>> dpkg-source refuses to build a 3.0 native package with a Debian
Ian Jackson wrote:
>
>1. Why is 1.0-without-diff not always worse than 3.0 (native) ?
>
>1.0 native is sometimes better than 3.0 (native) because dpkg-source
>refuses to build a 3.0 native package with a Debian revision in its
>version number.
>
>This prohibition exists solely because of a
Richard Laager writes:
> Could we only have "3.0 (quilt)" then, no "3.0 (native)"? Or, put
> differently, if you had a "native" package that is using a Debian
> revision and we allow that, what difference is left between "3.0
> (native)" and "3.0 (quilt)"?
3.0 (quilt) always has two tarballs,
On 3/9/22 10:38, Ian Jackson wrote:
This prohibition exists solely because of a doctrinal objection to
native-format packages with Debian revisions.
As I understood it, the idea was that you could just increment the
"actual" version number. I'm failing to see the advantage of
incrementing
Sean Whitton writes ("Re: proposed MBF: packages still using source format
1.0"):
> On Wed 09 Mar 2022 at 01:08pm +01, Lucas Nussbaum wrote:
> > On 08/03/22 at 17:33 -0700, Sean Whitton wrote:
> >> Lucas, as I've had a lot to do with these git workflows and have
>
On 09/03/22 at 08:52 -0700, Sean Whitton wrote:
> On Wed 09 Mar 2022 at 01:08pm +01, Lucas Nussbaum wrote:
> > Also, how would that work with packages that combine direct changes to
> > upstream, and quilt for Debian-created patches?
>
> Could you expand? I didn't think this category was one of
Hello,
On Wed 09 Mar 2022 at 01:08pm +01, Lucas Nussbaum wrote:
> On 08/03/22 at 17:33 -0700, Sean Whitton wrote:
>> Lucas, as I've had a lot to do with these git workflows and have
>> probably done the most work documenting them, I can help with any
>> specific follow-up questions you might
On 08/03/22 at 17:33 -0700, Sean Whitton wrote:
> Lucas, as I've had a lot to do with these git workflows and have
> probably done the most work documenting them, I can help with any
> specific follow-up questions you might have.
Thanks!
So the main question I think I have is:
can we find a
On 08/03/22 at 17:10 +0100, Johannes Schauer Marin Rodrigues wrote:
> I did exactly that and rebuilt all the packages found by Lucas with the
> following changes:
>
> $ mkdir -p debian/source
> $ echo '3.0 (quilt)' >debian/source/format
>
> 141 source packages produce bit-by-bit
Hello,
On Tue 08 Mar 2022 at 04:45pm +01, Lucas Nussbaum wrote:
> 1/ the arguments about using patches to track changes to upstream code.
> Among the ~600 packages in that potential MBF, there are still many that
> make changes to upstream code, which are not properly documented. I
> believe
Hello,
On Sun 06 Mar 2022 at 01:28pm -08, Russ Allbery wrote:
> If you're going to omit the ones in the last category, I think you should
> also omit the ones in the none/no/yes category, since they may be packages
> that intermittantly have changes and are similarly using a VCS-based
> workflow
On Tue, Mar 08, 2022 at 04:45:48PM +0100, Lucas Nussbaum wrote:
>...
> 1/ the arguments about using patches to track changes to upstream code.
> Among the ~600 packages in that potential MBF, there are still many that
> make changes to upstream code, which are not properly documented. I
> believe
On Tue, Mar 08, 2022 at 05:10:44PM +0100, Johannes Schauer Marin Rodrigues
wrote:
>...
> So now we have 364 source packages for which we have a patch and for which we
> can show that this patch does not change the build output. Do you agree that
> with those two properties, the advantages of the
Hi Adrian,
Am Tue, Mar 08, 2022 at 04:11:02PM +0200 schrieb Adrian Bunk:
> >
> > I agree that there is no real urgency for immediate action - but this
> > seemed to be the case for other bugs on the packages I've touched the
> > case as well.
>
> what time frame do you have in mind when you
Hi Adrian,
Quoting Adrian Bunk (2022-03-07 22:42:42)
> On Sun, Mar 06, 2022 at 09:25:45PM +0100, Lucas Nussbaum wrote:
> >...
> > I think that we should reduce the number of packages using the 1.0 format,
> > as
> > (1) format 3.0 has many advantages, as documented in
> >
On 08/03/22 at 16:11 +0200, Adrian Bunk wrote:
> On Tue, Mar 08, 2022 at 11:39:04AM +0100, Andreas Tille wrote:
> > Hi Adrian,
>
> Hi Andreas,
>
> > Am Mon, Mar 07, 2022 at 11:42:42PM +0200 schrieb Adrian Bunk:
> >...
> > > lintian already warns or has info tags that should be upgraded to
On Tue, Mar 08, 2022 at 11:39:04AM +0100, Andreas Tille wrote:
> Hi Adrian,
Hi Andreas,
> Am Mon, Mar 07, 2022 at 11:42:42PM +0200 schrieb Adrian Bunk:
>...
> > lintian already warns or has info tags that should be upgraded to warning,
>
> I absolutely agree here.
>
> > and then there will be
Hi Adrian,
Am Mon, Mar 07, 2022 at 11:42:42PM +0200 schrieb Adrian Bunk:
> On Sun, Mar 06, 2022 at 09:25:45PM +0100, Lucas Nussbaum wrote:
> > I think that we should reduce the number of packages using the 1.0 format,
> > as
> > (1) format 3.0 has many advantages, as documented in
> >
Hi,
no need to file the suggested bug reports against
Am Sun, Mar 06, 2022 at 09:25:45PM +0100 schrieb Lucas Nussbaum:
>pngmeta
Fixed and adopted by Debian Phototools team.
>pngnq
Fixed and adopted by Debian Phototools team.
>libimage-metadata-jpeg-perl
Fixed and adopted by
On Sun, Mar 06, 2022 at 09:25:45PM +0100, Lucas Nussbaum wrote:
>...
> I think that we should reduce the number of packages using the 1.0 format, as
> (1) format 3.0 has many advantages, as documented in
> https://wiki.debian.org/Projects/DebSrc3.0 ; (2) this contributes to
> standardization of
On Mon, Mar 07, 2022 at 05:35:43PM +0200, Wouter Verhelst wrote:
> On Sun, Mar 06, 2022 at 09:25:45PM +0100, Lucas Nussbaum wrote:
> > Wouter Verhelst
> >aspic
> >logtool
>
> Yeah, no. These will be reduced to "wishlist" and probably tagged
> "wontfix".
Both of these packages have no
On Mon, Mar 7, 2022 at 10:36 AM Wouter Verhelst wrote:
> On Sun, Mar 06, 2022 at 09:25:45PM +0100, Lucas Nussbaum wrote:
> > Wouter Verhelst
> >aspic
> >logtool
>
> Yeah, no. These will be reduced to "wishlist" and probably tagged
> "wontfix".
>
> The packages work just fine, the source
On Sun, Mar 06, 2022 at 09:25:45PM +0100, Lucas Nussbaum wrote:
> Wouter Verhelst
>aspic
>logtool
Yeah, no. These will be reduced to "wishlist" and probably tagged
"wontfix".
The packages work just fine, the source format is still supported, I
have better things to do with my time?
--
Hi,
On 06/03/22 at 22:24 +, Holger Levsen wrote:
> So I'd rather propose to file these bugs with severity 'normal' and then wait
> and then get policy updated, and then raise the severity further.
For reference, there's a debian-policy bug about deprecating 1.0 +
dpatch/quilt: #850157 (no
On 06/03/22 at 22:25 +0100, Marco d'Itri wrote:
> On Mar 06, Lucas Nussbaum wrote:
>
> > I think that we should reduce the number of packages using the 1.0 format,
> > as
> > (1) format 3.0 has many advantages, as documented in
> > https://wiki.debian.org/Projects/DebSrc3.0 ; (2) this
Hi Lucas,
thanks for doing this MBF!
I agree with the other two replies and have another thing to add:
On Sun, Mar 06, 2022 at 09:25:45PM +0100, Lucas Nussbaum wrote:
> I propose to file bugs using the following template, and make them Severity:
> serious after a month (minimum).
>
>
Lucas Nussbaum writes:
> The breakdown in terms of packages count is:
> patch_system | direct_changes | vcs | count
> --++-+---
> dpatch | no | no | 3
> quilt| no | no |26
> quilt| no |
On Mar 06, Lucas Nussbaum wrote:
> I think that we should reduce the number of packages using the 1.0 format, as
> (1) format 3.0 has many advantages, as documented in
> https://wiki.debian.org/Projects/DebSrc3.0 ; (2) this contributes to
> standardization of packaging practices, lowering the
Hi,
There are 629 packages in bookworm that use source format 1.0. That's 1.9% of
bookworm packages.
I think that we should reduce the number of packages using the 1.0 format, as
(1) format 3.0 has many advantages, as documented in
https://wiki.debian.org/Projects/DebSrc3.0 ; (2) this
76 matches
Mail list logo
