Re: Bug#673586: FTBFS if Python 3.2 is installed in chroot
Hi Steve,
Le mercredi, 15 mai 2013 21.46:39, Steve Langasek a écrit :
> Well, this was the first time the lsb package has been merged into Ubuntu
> from Debian in about four years; so there's still a delta, which we can try
> to clean up (that's always the goal) - but at this point it's too early to
> say whether we'll be able to get them in sync.
Long-term goal is a goal. Fine for me. :)
> However, seeing that the package is in collab-maint, I'm going to go ahead
> and pick off some of the lower-hanging fruit right now by pushing the fixes
> to git.
I feel compelled to point out here that this is not how I understand collab-
maint is supposed to work. That said, in that case, despite preferring commit
messages not including debian/changelog messages in favour of git-dch, I'm
happy with your commits that I had already committed (but not pushed) :)
I have uploaded your changes as +Debian11 with some changes of mine.
> The remaining delta consists of a few pieces:
>
> - The actual switch to python3. What are your thoughts on this? It's not
> a high priority for the python team in Debian as it is in Ubuntu, but it
> should be safe. The packaging in Ubuntu currently relies on running
> 2to3 at build time, however; since this is a native package, if we want to
> switch to python3 (and given that you already have python2.6 as the
> baseline for modules), we should really make those changes in place in the
> code. Do you agree? Would you like to go ahead and make this change?
I don't have a very clear vision yet on the impact of such a change on the
rest of Debian (d-i and default installation footprint come to mind) as lsb-
release will pull in python3 in quite a lot of situations. I will therefore
branch the code and upload the work-in-progress in that direction to
experimental.
> - pidofproc. Debian and Ubuntu have independently applied fixes to solve
> the return code of this function in certain cases; I'm confident based
> on the history that the current behavior of the Ubuntu implementation is
> correct, but I haven't had a chance to compare it with the Debian
> implementation, so I've kept the Ubuntu implementation for now. If you
> would be happy taking the Ubuntu version, I could send you a diff;
> otherwise I should find the time to review the Debian version and compare
> the logic.
I'd be more confident with dropping the Debian implementation with a review at
hand. A quick look indicates that they should be equivalent though (I know, it
doesn't help).
> - lsb-core Multi-Arch: foreign. This is a hack, we probably want to
> figure out how to fix this properly.
Indeed. The changelog entry indicates that it was an attempt at tricking the
multiarch system for helping proprietary packages, as I understand it.
> - mailx preferred over mailutils, because bsd-mailx is in main in Ubuntu
> and mailutils is not. There's been discussion just today about whether
> these should be swapped after all, so I don't think any action should be
> taken for this in Debian right now.
Good, thanks for the clarification.
> So certainly nothing insurmountable, but it'll take a little time to get
> things fully in sync.
The Jessie release cycle could be enough, we'll see.
> Oh, fwiw, I have to say I'm not a fan of the derived_from_ubuntu logic in
> the Debian package. I think it's vastly preferable to keep such
> differences as source package deltas than to have the same source package
> give different results when built on different derivatives.
Well; having all changes happen on the same codebase (and VCS) IMHO helps
avoiding useful distribution-agnostic changes in derivatives as contributors
are compelled to think twice whether the change is agnostic or specific
afterall.
> I'm not sure it's worth changing it in this case, but if you were to drop
> the Ubuntu-specific bits from the Debian package, that would be just fine
> with me.
Thanks for making that explicit. As long as they don't come in either your or
my way, I see no reason either to drop these.
Looking forward to more collaboration from Ubuntu on src:lsb ! :)
Cheers,
Didier
Reply to: