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

Re: Temporary solution for changelog problem in binNMUs



On Mon, May 13, 2013 at 15:16:57 +0200, Guillem Jover wrote:

> I've mentioned this before, I find this completely unsatisfactory,
> because (at least):
> 
>  1) the changelog stops representing the actual changelog of the
>     package.

Irrelevant, that's already the case today for anything but the first
binNMU.

>  2) the changelog is metadata anyway.

Maybe.  Maybe not.  There seems to be disagreement on that one.  It
doesn't contain anything tools need to know, unlike symbols/shlibs files
or the various maintainer scripts, so I'd argue they're quite different.

>  3) even if temporary, extractors might start looking into it.

What for?  And even then, so what?

>  4) even if temporary, we'll end up with uploaded packages with the
>     information in a different place, if we go with a different solution,
>     that will be 3 places where this can be found, and need supporting.

FSVO "need".

>  5) we could instead just decide now, and change the packaging helpers
>     once and be done with it, new packages will not suffer the problem
>     any more. The solution to consider changelogs metadata is also the
>     easiest one, just place them in the DEBIAN dir, that's it. I'll
>     prepare a proposal for at least debhelper later today.

This is Debian.  To "just decide" is going to take months.  There's no
consensus on your solution, and the current situation is just broken.

>  6) once “solved” I see there will be very low incentive to fix this
>     properly, or that “solution” might just end up being entrenched,
>     see what happened with the build flags being set by default by
>     dpkg-buildpackage...
> 
Again, so what?  Once "solved" the practical issues will go away.
The cosmetic issues can wait until there's a consensus, which doesn't
seem to exist today.

> Also detecting for now if a package cannot be binNMUed should be pretty
> strightforward, just checking if it builds M-A:same packages should be
> enough.
> 
Detecting is one thing.  We'll still need to rebuild those packages.
Sourceful uploads are much more costly, and I for one am not going to
bother.

Cheers,
Julien

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: Digital signature


Reply to: