Re: RFC: discover 1 -> 2 transition plan for Debian
On Tue, Mar 16, 2004 at 02:05:46PM +0100, Petter Reinholdtsen wrote:
> Good. I am executing it then. I'll start by updating the alioth CVS,
> and ask for people to review the changes. When this is done, I'll
> upload a new version and wait for the ftp-masters to do their thing.
> When the new discover1 package is in the archive, it should be safe to
> upload discover2 into unstable.
Yes, I'd definitely like to see discover2 replace discover1 in unstable.
However, there are issues with it still. One is that Progeny has
completely failed to follow through on what they said they would do.
We're basically going to have to take responsibility for discover2 as
much as we do for discover1 as far as I can see, given this. I've heard
rumblings that this is true from elsewhere as well.
Another issue is that, given the far more complex nature of discover2's
database, it really needs major testing and filling out in order to get
it right. When testing out discover2 I found that it failed to load a
few of my modules that discover1 loaded fine because it was more simple.
As such, I'd rather leave discover1 as the standard for d-i simply
because, while being a bit stupider, it works. Plust the database isn't
nearly as bloated which is a big deal for the floppies.
Still, the only way to get the database filled out is to get discover2
in to wider circulation and to simply add to the database as bug reports
come it. Getting it in to unstable while leaving it out of d-i (at least
as a default, maybe as a boot option?) is the best way to do this. Plus
I really don't want to mess with it while it's working so well at this
very late stage in d-i's release cycle.
> > Why do you want to rename the files? I would simply put a
> > "Conflicts: discover (>= 2)" into the discover1 package. You
> > probably won't install them both on the same system.
> Because I had this strange idea that it should be possible to install
> both on the same system. After trying to do the change, I discovered
> that this was probably a complete waste of time, and decided to do the
> conflicts trick instead. :)
Why the conflicts at all? If the discover2 package is providing the
discover package (>=2) then it should simply replace the old discover
package. Same for discover-data. discover-data and discover versions
would matter of course, but I don't understand why this couldn't be
solved just by depends. Could someone clue me in?
> > I would rename it to discover1-data. (leaving discover-data-udeb as
> > it is).
> Yes. And forget the renaming of files. :)
Ok, I think renaming it to discover1 and discover1-data is probably best
still, just because these are being relegated to udebs and nothing more
at this point. I think it's pretty safe to totally replace their debs in
- David Nusinow