Re: Recent changes in dpkg
Hi,
On Wed, 26 May 2010, Bernd Zeimetz wrote:
> > * dpkg-dev provides a new script called dpkg-buildflags that packages
> > should use in debian/rules to retrieve the default value of various
> > compilation flags. Bug #578597[1] has been submitted against
> > debian-policy. When generalized this offer us centralized archive-wide
> > control of the default build flags as well as the possibility for
> > end-users to try out easily new flags.
>
> So you plan to enforce something which resulted in a lot of FTBFS due to the
> fact that buildflags, which were written into a Makefile by configure or similar
> tools, were overridden by the default values from dpkg again as they were still
> present in the environment?
I'm sorry I don't understand you. When Frank merged the initial change
from Ubuntu it created lot of concerns that dpkg-buildpackage was not the
right place to set such default values because calling debian/rules
directly would not have them. For various reasons the discussion stalled
and it's only way later that I restarted the discussion to find a
solution that suits everybody.
Following that discussion, we decided to build this new interface that
packages must explicitly call (much like they call dpkg-architecture) to
retrieve the default values. Until most packages have been converted to
use this new interface, dpkg-buildpackage will continue to export the environment
variables but it gets the values exported ouf of dpkg-buildflags.
> > * The plan concerning dpkg-source and the default source format has been
> > clarified. In the long term, the default format will disappear and
> > debian/source/format will become mandatory. The lintian tag
> > missing-debian-source-format[2] will help us track that.
>
> Which will force developers to touch most of the packages in the archive just to
> realize this? Sorry, but that's insane. You should not try to force people into
> migrating to some new format because *you* think it is better. This is not a
> decision which should be decided by the dpkg maintainers - instead it needs to
> be discussed within the developers and maintainers. While the new format
Yeah! You managed to start yet another useless thread on the topic. My sole
response will be this one.
Yes, we're starting a long-term migration that will require every package
to be modified. The reasons are that the dpkg maintainers consider the
format 1.0 to no longer be a desirable default for dpkg-source given the
availability of improved formats. We also acknowledge the fact that
there's no longer a single format that suits all cases and as such we want
the maintainer to be explicit about the choice they make.
No, we won't break packages, it's a migration and dpkg-source will be
switched only when all packages have been modified. There are warnings
in place both in dpkg-source and in lintian. We are fully aware that it will
take very long and README.feature-removal-schedule of dpkg says this:
What: fallback of dpkg-source to source format "1.0" without explicit debian/source/format
Status: deprecated
When: 1.17.x
Warning: program and lintian (missing-debian-source-format)
Why:
With the support of multiple source formats, the user should be explicit
about the desired source format. The fallback to "1.0" is there only for
backwards compatiblity but will be removed once all packages have the
debian/source/format file. This is unlikely to happen before 1.17.x.
And 1.17.x means squeeze+2. And at that time, 1.0 will still be supported,
it's just that it won't be assumed if debian/source/format is absent.
> provides some advantages when it comes to the handling of patches, the 1.0
> format is still much more flexible to use - for example it does not require an
> existing tarball to build a package, which is very useful for testing.
Testing requires binary packages only. Use "dpkg-buildpackage -b" and it
will work even without any upstream tarball.
Cheers,
--
Raphaël Hertzog
Like what I do? Sponsor me: http://ouaza.com/wp/2010/01/05/5-years-of-freexian/
My Debian goals: http://ouaza.com/wp/2010/01/09/debian-related-goals-for-2010/
Reply to: