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

Bug#891395: marked as done (libfabric1: improperly packaged library support files)

>>>>> "MD" == Mehdi Dogguy <mehdi@dogguy.org> writes:

    MD> Version: 1.6.1-5 On 2018-06-19 11:58, Roland Fehrenbacher wrote:
    >>>>>>> "M" == Mehdi Dogguy <mehdi@dogguy.org> writes:
    >> Hi Mehdi,
    M> Control: reopen -1 Hi Roland,
    M> If I am not mistaken, your last upload moves files across binary
    M> packages but doesn't add necessary Breaks/Replaces. In the
    M> current state, upgrades are broken because older libfabric1 and
    M> newer libfabric-dev are not co-installable.
    >> fixed, thanks for noticing quickly.

    MD> Then marking this bug as such...

    >> Something else: Could you please delete the
    >> patch-queue/debian/master branch of the salsa libfabric
    >> repo. It's totally out of sync and not easily fixable. Then I can
    >> add your latest patch to it too.

    MD> Anyone in the team should be able to do that.

Indeed, I found the relevant place where this can be done now ...

    MD> As for patch-queue/* branches, I'd vote for not publishing
    MD> them. They are useful locally. It takes only a few seconds to
    MD> rebuild them. What's the point of publishing them?  (especially
    MD> when you know that they should be rebased/rebuilt often).

The point is that it's clearly documented against what code state the
patches were created and it's guaranteed that they apply correctly.
Also, if you want to update them against a new version, rebasing with git
takes care of a lot of corrections automatically, whereas using
'gbp pq import' leaves you with conflicts that you have to fix manually
much more often.



Reply to: