[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: About dpkg-shlibdeps checks

On Fri, Nov 23, 2007 at 11:15:46AM +0000, Bernd Zeimetz wrote:
> Pierre Habouzit wrote:
> >   But forcing every maintainer that probably had an agenda for their
> > package already, to comply to yours without even knowing what's coming
> > is at the very least tactless and disruptive.
> the new dpkg was in experimental for a long enough time, and this was
> announced often enough. If packages run into trouble with it now, it's
> imho not the problem of the dpkg maintainer (except there're bugs in
> dpkg, of course).

  I disagree. We have (Raphael among the "we") little clues right now on
how well the new implementation will work on a large scale. We already
see a lot of nasty failures happen that aren't expected, because the
maintainers that will likely suffer from those the most, are the one
that already had the less time to test it.

  "announcing" a new feature and giving a time-frame for people to
conform and then shoot them, is not really what I call management.
Proper management includes a staging period between the absence of the
failure, and the full pedantic activation of it.

  There is a huge difference between a dpkg in experimental that many a
couple of people tried, and being forced to suffer its disruption during
a transition or a long planned upload. So I urge Raphael to keep the
"errors" warnings for a month so that people can get used to it, and
take proper measures.

  The disruption it caused to the KDE guys (and I fear for OOo or
moizilla) isn't _that_ surprising to me, and it's completely unfair to
prevent them from doing anything. Because that's what dpkg-shlibdeps
does: the KDE team think it's a 3days effort to support the new
dpkg-shlibdeps. They had plans, it gets all destroyed because there
wasn't an incremental introduction of the feature.

  What I've learned, and I believed that Debian should know since: in
computing (and I believe in many other areas) *NOTHING* works according
to the plan. So you'd better have a progressive plan to keep the issues
manageable. The "Off->On" switch button is the worst one can do in that

  I absolutely don't understand what Raphael has to gain by forcing
everyone to fix their package *RIGHT NOW OR YOU DIE HAHAHAHA*, except
raising the frustration levels wrt a migration that I believe goes in
the good direction. It's not because it's a good thing that it should be
aggressively forced and imposed to the face of the world.

·O·  Pierre Habouzit
··O                                                madcoder@debian.org
OOO                                                http://www.madism.org

Attachment: pgp_Egma62UK5.pgp
Description: PGP signature

Reply to: