Re: RFS: unetbootin
Hello Arno,
On 2011-12-10 20:00, Arno Töll wrote:
> On 10.12.2011 19:19, Eugene V. Lyubimkin wrote:
> > This is generally not a valid reason. For example, this makes it
> > impossible to build the package on the system which has debhelper v7
> > installed, for no reason.
>
> Well, given that this requirement is fulfilled in Squeeze as is, and
> even newer backports are available to both, Squeeze and Lenny - despite
> of reaching end of life very soon for the latter that's not a strong
> argument.
Yet this a regression, despite it's tiny size.
> It is perfectly fine for me if you require debhelper 7 as a personal
> requirement to sponsor packages
No, I'm fine with debhelper v6 or v8 or whatever else remotely sane,
given it's actually used for something. The change in question bumped
the version without changing debian/rules and debian/compat. That's
useless, isn't it?
> but I disagree with you if you claim
> that there would be no reason to use debhelper 8 at all.
I didn't say so, see above.
> I fail to see why we would need to keep compatibility forever, if there
> is newer, better stuff available where some legacy problems can be
> avoided entirely or worked around (that's what debhelper's compat level
> is for, after all). If your package does not fail to build when using a
> modern, recommended compatibility level, why not use it?
While I don't propose to use the same compatibility level forever, that
sounds like "oh nice, my package builds correctly with new shiny g++
4.6, let's bump a build-dependency". Even if it builds fine with, say, g++
4.2.
One more example:
-8<-
$ cupt depends akregator | grep libc6
Depends: libc6 (>= 2.1.3)
->8-
Lenny has libc6 2.7.
> The idea of compatibility levels is to keep compatibility with old crap
> which is known to be broken. Not the other way around.
Huh? So, packages which had a debhelper compat level of 7 in some
Lenny/Squeeze development time were fine because 7 was the "recommended
compat level" but they suddenly became "old crap which is known to be
broken" now?
> For more background about that principle please refer to [1]
>
> [1] http://lists.debian.org/debian-mentors/2011/07/msg00194.html
Oh, thanks for the link. I agree with the whole initial mail. Plus, let
me quote Joey Hess [2] from that thread:
| > and
| >"v8 This is the recommended mode of operation."
|
| This qualification is there mostly to avoid people using v9 before it's
| complete; the only non-recommended compat levels are v4 and below,
| which are deprecated.
|
| As a point of comparison, the compat histogram for packages I
| co-maintain is:
|
| 124 7
| 6 5
| 3 8
| 2 4
| 1 9
| 1 6
[2] http://lists.debian.org/debian-mentors/2011/07/msg00228.html
--
Eugene V. Lyubimkin aka JackYF, JID: jackyf.devel(maildog)gmail.com
C++/Perl developer, Debian Developer
Reply to: