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

Re: Mass bugfiling in preparation for multiarch

Aurelien Jarno <aurelien@aurel32.net> writes:

> On Mon, Mar 16, 2009 at 03:40:53PM -0700, Russ Allbery wrote:
>> Aurelien Jarno <aurelien@aurel32.net> writes:
>> > If you want to get some more multiarch ennemies, this is clearly the way
>> > to go.
>> >
>> > The alternate method is to post a list to debian-devel, and when we have
>> > a basic multiarch support, you may start thinking about filling bugs.
>> > Not before.
>> Well, regardless of the benefits for multiarch, library packages
>> containing binaries that don't change names with different SONAMEs violate
>> a Policy must at present.  So either they're RC bugs or Policy is wrong
>> about the severity.
>> It's a theoretical problem in libc6 in particular since the chances of
>> libc6 changing SONAMEs again is low and there would be a lot of other work
>> to have to do to deal with that apart from the binaries in /usr/bin, but
>> the situation for other libraries is much more concrete.  I've already
>> filed an RC bug about this in one other package that I ran into.  I think
>> such bugs are fair game regardless of whether or not we're trying to
>> implement multiarch (with the normal caveats about mass bug filing).
>> If the file does change with SONAME, that's a different matter, and that
>> part depends more on our multiarch direction.

I will try to look for both cases but split the list into those that
violate the MUST and those that are only a problem for multiarch. I'm
not expecting so many of the later. Use of the SONAME looked rare in
the small set I worked with so far.

> Still mass filling bugs is not the solution here. As it see seems we like
> policy and reference, let me quote the developer reference 7.2:
> "Please use the programms dd-list and if appropriate whodepends (from
> the package devscripts) to generate a list of all affected packages, and
> include the output in your mail to <debian-devel@lists.debian.org>."
> That's what I suggested.

Except you didn't say that. What you first wrote I read as "Don't you
dare file any bugs for any of them."

Reading this mail it seems you more probably ment "Lets generate a
list first and then talk about it again.".

Sorry for my strong first reply.


Reply to: