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

Re: dpkg semi-hijack - an announcement (also, triggers)

On Wed, 2008-03-12 at 10:01:35 +0000, Ian Jackson wrote:
> Guillem Jover writes ("Re: dpkg semi-hijack - an announcement (also, triggers)"):
> > On Mon, 2008-03-10 at 14:42:48 +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
> > > Against the wishes of, afaict, Guillem and Raphael, Ian's made applying
> > > his triggers patch dependent on:
> > > 
> > > 	- reversion to two space indenting

I seems I'll need to clarify this as well, as it's not correct, and has
been brought somewhere else... The rest has already been explained
several times, and I don't think there's any need to be repetitive.

> The history of this change is as follows:
>   * At some point, without any kind of discussion, Guillem
>     unilaterally reformats several files to 8-character indents.

This is not correct. The changes referred to in bug 375711 were
introduced when:

  Wichert reindents configure.c:


  Initial version by Wichert of showpkg.c:


  New function by Fumitoshi Ukai in archives.c:


  Initial version of tarfn.c (git history does not go further and the
  ChangeLog is not detailed enough, from the header I assume it was
  Bruce Perens):


>   * On the *26th of June 2006* I noticed this because it caused
>     an unnecessary merge conflict while I was trying to do a merge
>     between the Ubuntu and Debian versions of dpkg.

I doubt actually this caused any merge conflict, given that those files
had been this way for a long long time.

>   * I thought it was a mistake because surely no-one would
>     deliberately change the indent depth in an existing piece of free
>     software.  (A plausible mechanism for the mistake involves an
>     editor with tab-width set to 2; these kind of things do happen
>     occasionally.)

It does not matter if it was a mistake or not, this kind of change
should have never landed in any unrelated non-official branch mixed
with other stuff. And I disagree that no one would want to change
coding style as I explained in:


>   * I therefore posted saying to debian-dpkg that this loooked like a
>     mistake.  I also filed a bug, #375711, with a patch to revert the
>     change.
>   * On the *30th of May 2007* I got the same merge conflict again in a
>     later merge.  My bug report had gone unanswered.  By this point
>     there is a considerable body of changes in Ubuntu which ought to
>     be merged into Debian, all of which have the original formatting
>     as I requested in my bug report.

The patch in that bug had been partially applied (explained at [0]):


And I guess at this point I should have just closed the bug, but this
was a continuos source of conflict, so leaving it open seemed to be
the less annoying.

I disagree with the rest of the patch[1], which was also wrong (due to
the resulting mixed indentantion), as I explained at:

  [0] <http://lists.debian.org/debian-dpkg/2007/08/msg00006.html>

  [1] <http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?msg=5;filename=diff;att=1;bug=375711>

>   * So I post to debian-dpkg again and Guillem tells me it was
>     deliberate.

I said in [0] that "I think that those changes were done on purpose".


Reply to: