Re: Bug#487437: Please include /etc/dpkg/origins/{debian,default}

[Colin Watson <cjwatson@ubuntu.com>]

On Wed, Aug 27, 2008 at 08:31:47PM +0200, Raphael Hertzog wrote:
> On Wed, 27 Aug 2008, Santiago Vila wrote:
> > On Wed, 27 Aug 2008, Raphael Hertzog wrote:
> > > However the symlink should point to ubuntu if base-files is built on
> > > Ubuntu and to debian if built on Debian. [...]
> > 
> > Hmm, first it is suggested that this is done in base-files because it
> > is easier to fork, but then a procedure is described in which no fork
> > is even necessary, except for a "bootstrap".
> 
> Forking is always needed to add the new file in "origins".

With my Ubuntu hat on (as a frequent uploader of both base-files and
dpkg there):

  * Modulo a few tweaks, I think Raphaël's origins work is fantastic and
    will adopt it like a shot as soon as it's convenient to do so (i.e.
    it's in Debian and we're at a suitable point in our release cycle
    for a new major version of dpkg).

  * While there's still some work to do, there is considerable promise
    for this to allow us to use an entirely unpatched dpkg (perhaps
    throwing away a few relatively unimportant things in our diff that
    haven't mattered so long as we had to carry a big diff anyway). As
    such, I agree that it would be convenient for this to be in
    base-files rather than in dpkg.

  * I very definitely prefer the default vendor change to be an explicit
    change in base-files' source, rather than being implicit based on
    the system on which base-files was built. That's much clearer and is
    an insignificant cost for us. I have no particular opinion on any
    particular way of creating that symlink, although I would find it a
    little bit surprising if a user "sidegraded" from Debian to Ubuntu
    or vice-versa and found that their entire system changed *except*
    for /etc/dpkg/origins/default.

Thanks,

-- 
Colin Watson                                       [cjwatson@ubuntu.com]