Petter Reinholdtsen <pere@hungry.com> (2014-09-11): > Given that udebs and debs have different name spaces, I do not see any > problem myself with dropping a name from one namespace and introducing > it in another, which is what I did when I renamed archdetect to > archdetect-udeb in the udeb namespace and introduced the archdetect > name into the deb namespace. Re-using package names has always been a pain, for users, for packages depending on them, for bug tracking purposes, for bisecting purposes (downloading older snapshots in an automated way, testing them), etc. This should be avoided. Always. Consistency with a naming scheme is not a reason good enough to outweigh the costs mentioned above. > The freeze is two months away. I understand you see the freeze as > very close, while I see it as a bit further away. I fully respect > your view about the urgenzy, even if I do not quite share it. I > believe fixing the d-i build could have been done this week (for > example by uploading a new debian-installer package without the kernel > change), and was prepared to get any required fixes in place as soon > as possible. First thing first: I upload debian-installer only when it is needed, meaning we're targetting a release. Secondly, since the udeb change didn't reach testing, no, it wouldn't have worked. I know two months is a lot, somewhat. But there are many more important things to track already! So losing time, focus, and energy over such disruptive and avoidable changes is really not appreciated. > > As I already mentioned, you had been told in advance more stuff > > would have to be adjusted! > > I noticed you mentioned IRC messages I hadn't seen before you > mentioned them here in the mail, so I guess they were said while I was > away from IRC. No, you were in the middle of a conversation with Colin. I'm not going to copy/paste it because that'd be impolite, but you'll find it in your logs, 2014-09-09, around 10 UTC. > > Sticking to naming schemes is nice, but that certainly shouldn't be a > > reason for renaming packages and generating more work! You could look > > at the file you modified: > [...] > > *-udeb really isn't mandatory in any way! > > Sure, but it is used when there is a deb and an udeb. The common > naming then is <package> for the deb name space and <package>-udeb for > the udeb namespace. I did not check them all, but as far as I can > tell, the examples without the '-udeb' ending do not have a package in > the deb namespace. That doesn't mean we have to enforce it. I'm pretty sure that someone 1. wanting to use archdetect 2. doing apt-get install archdetect can either press tab to try autocompletion, or use apt-cache search archdetect to discover the archdetect-deb package (if we ended up stealing this name from Ubuntu). > > So yes, I reverted these changes since renaming is unwarranted, > > already broke things, and might break others; I'm not interested in > > dealing with possible fallouts due to cosmetics. > > My approach would have been to fix the remaining issues and keep the > archdetect and archdetect-udeb names, but I'm not starting competing > for commits uploads over this and will try to find time for the fix > after Jessie instead. Thanks. Mraw, KiBi.
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature