Re: INN packages
>
> Date: Mon, 17 Jan 2000 21:20:10 MST
> To: debian-devel@lists.debian.org
> From: Bdale Garbee <bdale@gag.com>
> Subject: Re: INN packages
>
> In article <[🔎] 20000117200446.D1032@wonderland.linux.it> you wrote:
>
> > My suggestion for a compromise is to package inn 2.x as inn2 and if
> > the release manager accepts that, put again the old 1.7.x package
> > in potato.
> > Bdale, would you do that?
>
> Maybe. I thought long and hard about doing it that way, and I am *not*
> convinced that Debian will be a better distribution with more than one
> version of INN present.
/me begins to grumble about not being aware of this impending version
change... (note use of "irc" /me; it is somewhat relevent) probably my
fault... (at this point) I wish I had asked...
> If we were to do this, someone else would need to adopt the 1.7.2 packages,
> as I have no interest in maintaining two versions of INN, and I'm moving
> my servers to the 2.2.2 packages. Also, note that there were a number of
> fairly serious and release-critical bugs against the 1.7.2 packages. If I
> were the release manager, I would insist that they be fixed before I put
> those packages into potato.
I guess I would too. But I'll tell ya what else I would insist on:
If there were a package inn and a package inn that didn't replace the other
cleanly without thought (or refusal to replace if automatic methods were
not available), I would insist that the other inn be under a different name.
Debian's claim to fame is its automatic upgrade path. For advocacy's sake,
don't screw that up.
> There is also the question of the innfeed package. Since innfeed is included
> in the inn 2.2.2 package, I intend to request that the discreet innfeed
> packages (which I also maintain) be removed from potato. If you really want
> to put inn 1.7.2 back into the distribution, this will need to be addressed
> too. Since there is no huge rush, I won't request the removal quite yet.
No huge rush?? I'm sorry, did you miss the freeze point? Potato is frozen! :)
> > There is no point in packaging INN 2.x as inn, an automatic upgrade
> > path is not possible anyway.
>
> I don't completely agree with your logic. The ability to do a completely
> automatic upgrade has never been a first-order decision point for forking
> a package based on version that I am aware of.
Question here, given inn stays at its present version (1.7.2), how will
an upgrade from slink go? If it won't, PLEASE let me know NOW, and I will
purge my entire feed and redo it. Any chance 2.2.2 debs will be available
for slink?
> It would certainly have been
> easier for me to just orphan the 1.X packages, build new 2.X packages under
> different package names, and avoid this whole issue. I have never felt that
> was in the best interests of the users of the Debian INN package, which is
> why I did not do it.
What about a conversion package?
> If there were some easy way to have the primary inn packages for potato be
> the 2.2.2 packages, and to continue to have 1.7.2 available as inn1 or
> something like that, I'd be somewhat happier... but our packaging system
> would not handle this idea very gracefully.
>
> > I think the 1.7 without the insync patch can support many more users
> > than 20.
>
> Absolutely. I am even aware of one moderately-patched 1.5.1 server on an
> HP 9000/735 HP-UX system with well-optimized disk layout that is still happily
> serving as a significant mostly-transport-but-with-some-readers server for a
> major corporation. I think both of you have been fairly harsh in your
> comments about versions other than 2.3. When properly tuned, they are quite
> capable.
>
> Alexander implied with his comments that I'm somehow not very
> knowledgeable about news servers or the state of INN development.
> Without rattling off my news pedigree, suffice to say that I have
> maintained at least one news server continuously since 1985. I read
> "all the right lists and groups", and I think I know quite well the
> status of the various INN versions.
I am fully appreciative of having a formidible individual such as
yourself maintaining inn. My request based on this, is simply to
keep debian developers and inn users informed at the very least
about major impending-doom type changes such as this, so that we
can comfortably operate inn at whatever level we do, and have
sufficient time to do whatever manual things are necessary to
the databases we have.
Earlier is better. Please note the existance of Debian Weekly News.
> The current stable and supported release of INN is 2.2.2.
And make no mistake, I want to run it if I have to purge my entire
feed (again) and start fresh. I may or may not have time to decide
which. My fault, my decision... but again, earlier notice is better
and appreciated.
> The 1.7.2 version
> is obsolete and should not necessarily be expected to be included in future
> security patch releases, etc. The 1.X insync patch and others that people
> talk about are not mainstream, despite how useful they might be. The 2.3
> version is still in very active development, and it is completely unclear
> when it might be released... though I suspect it will be well after potato
> ships. And regardless of what their motivations might be, I have had a fairly
> steady stream of email over the past months from Debian users asking when we
> would migrate from 1.X to 2.X.
A bad situation facing you. Again, I am appreciative of having a
knowledgable maintainer capable of handling it.
> Given all of this, I chose to move from 1.7.2 to 2.2.2 for potato, and
> intend to continue following the 2.3 development with the expectation
> that it might be the right choice for our next release (woody). You
> are certainly free to disagree with my reasoning, and I'm willing to
> discuss alternatives. However, please understand that as the
> maintainer of the Debian INN packages since May 1999, I have thought
> about this quite a bit, and have planned for months to ship 2.X as the
> INN version in potato. The appearance of INN 2.2.2 packages for
> potato was not a quick decision on my part, and was not made
> arbitrarily.
I'm glad I am finally aware of the change... I do wish you would have
mentioned it on irc tho, or /topic-ed it. I have (tried to) speak to
you there, I am a brand spanking new green newbie no-experience know-
almost-nothing-yet news admin for my school lab, and maybe soon for
my school district. Yet I called our T1 provider, got the feed started
without asking too many questions other than "are you feeding me yet",
installed inn, ran into a problem where nnrpd completely refused to
serve readers, couldn't find it so purged everything including the
database and started over. Now it works. I am pondering doing the same
when going to 2.x, and I'd rather do it during a break, and maybe
before moving the server from slink to potato. But when I emailed
you, you haven't responded yet. You were probably busy. I tried
to talk to you on irc when you were there; no go either. Again,
you were probably busy. Oh well, my server does work.
In doing all this, I didn't have to know much. This is in large part
because of your packaging of inn and innfeed. I do appreciate it,
but as most developer communication to the release manager happens
along the changelog, please remember that most developer-user
communication happens along the version number. If a package goes
to a new version without a name change, the person with the shiny
new CD will go "wut dat... oh, new package,,, work bedder" and
proceed to upgrade...
Debian is known far and wide for this ability. Debian gets to keep
this rep if upgrades go smooothly. Thanks (in advance, I guess)
for your assistance in this regard.
-Jim
---
Jim Lynch Finger for pgp key
as Laney College CIS admin: jim@laney.edu http://www.laney.edu/~jim/
as Debian developer: jwl@debian.org http://www.debian.org/~jwl/
Reply to: