Re: Bug#619275: Perl Policy change to document major version upgrade trigger
On Fri, Apr 01, 2011 at 09:36:35AM +0300, Niko Tyni wrote:
> On Fri, Mar 25, 2011 at 10:31:24PM +0000, Dominic Hargreaves wrote:
> > On Fri, Mar 25, 2011 at 12:38:19PM +0200, Niko Tyni wrote:
> > > While I do think this is a nice solution, I've got a couple of concerns:
> > >
> > > - is this overkill? Would it be enough for the long running daemons to just
> > > register an interest in a file trigger on /usr/bin/perl ? This means
> > > minor perl upgrades will activate the trigger too, but that may well
> > > be a good thing - think of security fixes and the like. (OTOH, this
> > > approach doesn't help daemons embedding libperl...)
> >
> > As a consumer of the interface (ie the package wanting to be triggered)
> > I would prefer an explicit declaration of intent for the trigger, rather
> > than just watching /usr/bin/perl, for the specific instances where I can
> > know (or have a good hunch) that my software will break.
>
> OK, I'm mostly convinced. (As I said that doesn't take much in this
> case :)
>
> I'd still like to see some adoption first. I suppose
> debtags search 'implemented-in::perl && interface::daemon'
> would be a good start in finding likely candidates.
>
> I suspect there aren't many: AFAICS the affected daemons are only those
> ones that don't load all their modules at startup, but rather require()
> them only when needed.
>
> Given the silence so far, if more affected packages are found I don't
> think this discussion should block filing wishlist bugs.
>
> OTOH, if spamassassin is the only package affected, do we really need a
> policy change at all? I'm not really opposed to it, and it could benefit
> future packages getting things right from the start, but it is a bit on
> the heavy side IMO...
Is there progress on the implementation of this feature ?
So far there are a single second and Niko partial objection.
For my part, I think this is important that the feature be documented (if implemented)
but not necessarily in policy, at least until it is more than a proof of concept.
Cheers,
--
Bill. <ballombe@debian.org>
Imagine a large red swirl here.
Reply to: