Hi Sean, On Tue, Mar 28, 2006 at 05:22:51AM -0500, sean finney wrote: > i got a grave bug reported against nagios recently (#359637), because > nagios is no longer installable in unstable. it looks like > someone's bin-NMU'd it on 2006/03/20, along with the other > arch:any packages. > my best guess is that this has to do with the recent mysql > versioning vs our versioning of symbols fiasco with libmysqlclient15, > but there are a couple questions that have me a bit concerned, or > at least curious: > - am i correct? > - why was no bug reported against my package before the binNMU? > - why was i not informed of the binNMU afterwards? Because ideally, such binNMUs should be completely transparent to maintainers. Except when something breaks, like this. :) > the big problem here is that the new packages have a bumped > debian revision. of course this makes sense (and a future > upload by me will make these packages disappear), but it > has in the meantime silently rendered nagios uninstallable > because there is a "sourceful" (sorry, not quite sure what the > correct terminology is) depends on nagios-common. that is: > nagios-mysql depends on nagios-common (= ${Source-Version}) > so when nagios-mysql is bumped without bumping nagios-common, we > have our current situation. Which is no worse than the previous situation, of nagios-mysql being uninstallable because libmysqlclient15 is no longer available. > my guess is that there are other packages which may have a similar > problem. Yes, arch: any packages with strict dependencies on arch: all packages are a common problem. We need a systemic solution for this to be implemented in dpkg. On Tue, Mar 28, 2006 at 08:13:51PM +0200, Andreas Metzler wrote: > At least I as a package maintainer am not very interested in: > bug#465656 mysql breakage. > dear maintainer please do not make a sourceful upload, we (d-r) > willhandle this using binNMUs. > followed by a > bug#465656 fixed, we made the binNMUed > two hours later. And I'm not interested in having to close such bugs. :) > Imho being incompatible with binNMUs is a bug, the dependency clearly > is too strict, as nagios-mysql 2:1.3-cvs.20050402-12+b1 surely _would_ > work with nagios-common 2:1.3-cvs.20050402-12. Wouldn't > Depends: nagios-common (=> ${upstreamversion}), nagios-common (<= ${upstreamversion}.0) > work for you? In the general case one cannot know, a priori, that a given version of a package will be compatible with future Debian revisions of a related package. I don't think maintainers that are concerned about such incompatibilities should be asked to change their package dependencies just to support binNMUs. The right solution here *is* to enhance dpkg-dev so that it knows the difference between source and binary versions. -- Steve Langasek Give me a lever long enough and a Free OS Debian Developer to set it on, and I can move the world. vorlon@debian.org http://www.debian.org/
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature