Bug#240665: marked as done ([PROPOSAL] require depending on split-off packages)
Your message dated Fri, 04 Feb 2005 20:48:45 -0600
with message-id <87oeeziuwi.fsf@glaurung.internal.golden-gryphon.com>
and subject line [PROPOSAL] require depending on split-off packages
has caused the attached Bug report to be marked as done.
This means that you claim that the problem has been dealt with.
If this is not the case it is now your responsibility to reopen the
Bug report if necessary, and/or fix the problem forthwith.
(NB: If you are a system administrator and have no idea what I am
talking about this indicates a serious mail system misconfiguration
somewhere. Please contact me immediately.)
Debian bug tracking system administrator
(administrator, Debian Bugs database)
--------------------------------------
Received: (at submit) by bugs.debian.org; 28 Mar 2004 16:31:40 +0000
>From aba@not.so.argh.org Sun Mar 28 08:31:40 2004
Return-path: <aba@not.so.argh.org>
Received: from mail-in.m-online.net [62.245.150.237]
by spohr.debian.org with esmtp (Exim 3.35 1 (Debian))
id 1B7dCG-0001S4-00; Sun, 28 Mar 2004 08:31:40 -0800
Received: from mail.m-online.net (svr14.m-online.net [192.168.3.144])
by svr8.m-online.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 76A824C011
for <submit@bugs.debian.org>; Sun, 28 Mar 2004 18:31:39 +0200 (CEST)
Received: from sol.so.argh.org (ppp-82-135-4-50.mnet-online.de [82.135.4.50])
by mail.m-online.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 618C96AA3D
for <submit@bugs.debian.org>; Sun, 28 Mar 2004 18:31:39 +0200 (CEST)
Received: from aba by sol.so.argh.org with local (Exim 4.22 #1 (Debian) [+prerelease])
id 1B7dCE-0007Q8-Q2
for <submit@bugs.debian.org>; Sun, 28 Mar 2004 18:31:38 +0200
Date: Sun, 28 Mar 2004 18:31:38 +0200
From: Andreas Barth <aba@not.so.argh.org>
To: submit@bugs.debian.org
Subject: [PROPOSAL] require depending on split-off packages
Message-ID: <20040328163138.GI25294@mails.so.argh.org>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha1;
protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="2oS5YaxWCcQjTEyO"
Content-Disposition: inline
User-Agent: Mutt/1.3.28i
X-Editor: Vim http://www.vim.org/
Delivered-To: submit@bugs.debian.org
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 2.60-bugs.debian.org_2004_03_25
(1.212-2003-09-23-exp) on spohr.debian.org
X-Spam-Status: No, hits=-7.0 required=4.0 tests=BAYES_00,HAS_PACKAGE
autolearn=no version=2.60-bugs.debian.org_2004_03_25
X-Spam-Level:
--2oS5YaxWCcQjTEyO
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Package: debian-policy
Version: 3.6.1.0
Severity: wishlist
Hi,
we had some discussion the last days about whether a package must depend
on a split-off package.
I herby propose to add a section 7.5.3 to the policy with the words:
7.5.3 Moving files or functionality to another package
If some functionality is moved from one package to another (also at
splitting off a package), the first one must depend on the second for
the time of at least one stable release. By this, no functionality is
removed on dist-upgrade.
Cheers,
Andi
--=20
http://home.arcor.de/andreas-barth/
PGP 1024/89FB5CE5 DC F1 85 6D A6 45 9C 0F 3B BE F1 D0 C5 D1 D9 0C
--2oS5YaxWCcQjTEyO
Content-Type: application/pgp-signature
Content-Disposition: inline
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.3 (GNU/Linux)
iD8DBQFAZv3qmdOZoew2oYURAvNbAJ9oxdi7jhJ81CDn6pQS1udTf7kfjQCfbhlg
taQApnSQ5j9PSGrQymgXbF0=
=HiG6
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
--2oS5YaxWCcQjTEyO--
---------------------------------------
Received: (at 240665-done) by bugs.debian.org; 5 Feb 2005 02:58:39 +0000
>From srivasta@debian.org Fri Feb 04 18:58:39 2005
Return-path: <srivasta@debian.org>
Received: from host-12-107-230-171.dtccom.net (glaurung.internal.golden-gryphon.com) [12.107.230.171]
by spohr.debian.org with esmtp (Exim 3.35 1 (Debian))
id 1CxG9e-0002p7-01; Fri, 04 Feb 2005 18:58:39 -0800
Received: from glaurung.internal.golden-gryphon.com (localhost [127.0.0.1])
by glaurung.internal.golden-gryphon.com (8.13.3/8.13.3/Debian-4) with ESMTP id j152n8q0006440
(version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NOT);
Fri, 4 Feb 2005 20:49:21 -0600
Received: (from srivasta@localhost)
by glaurung.internal.golden-gryphon.com (8.13.3/8.13.3/Submit) id j152mj4o006292;
Fri, 4 Feb 2005 20:48:45 -0600
X-Authentication-Warning: glaurung.internal.golden-gryphon.com: srivasta set sender to srivasta(va, manoj)@debian.org using -f
From: Manoj Srivastava <srivasta@debian.org (va, manoj)>
To: Andreas Barth <aba@not.so.argh.org>, 240665-done@bugs.debian.org
Subject: [PROPOSAL] require depending on split-off packages
Organization: The Debian Project
User-Agent: Gnus/5.110003 (No Gnus v0.3) Emacs/21.3.50 (gnu/linux)
(i686-pc-linux-gnu)
X-URL: http://www.debian.org/%7Esrivasta/
Mail-Copies-To: nobody
X-Face: #q.#]5@vq!Jz+E0t_/;Y^gTjR\T^"B'fbeuVGiyKrvbfKJl!^e|e:iu(kJ6c|QYB57LP*|t
&YlP~HF/=h:GA6o6W@I#deQL-%#.6]!z:6Cj0kd#4]>*D,|0djf'CVlXkI,>aV4\}?d_KEqsN{Nnt7
78"OsbQ["56/!nisvyB/uA5Q.{)gm6?q.j71ww.>b9b]-sG8zNt%KkIa>xWg&1VcjZk[hBQ>]j~`Wq
Xl,y1a!(>6`UM{~'X[Y_,Bv+}=L\SS*mA8=s;!=O`ja|@PEzb&i0}Qp,`Z\:6:OmRi*
X-Hashcash: 1:25:050205:aba@not.so.argh.org::70JsPh2GNfxRpwDj:000000000000000000000000000000000000000000gcVI
X-Hashcash: 1:25:050205:240665-done@bugs.debian.org::VpYAI3+HhYKAjNT6:0000000000000000000000000000000001qzs6
Date: Fri, 04 Feb 2005 20:48:45 -0600
Message-ID: <87oeeziuwi.fsf@glaurung.internal.golden-gryphon.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
X-CRM114-Score: -82.4651
X-CRM114-Status: Good ( pR: -82.4651 )
X-Spam-Value: -18.9248388888889
X-SA-Rep: -18.9248388888889 ALL_TRUSTED,BAYES_00,HASHCASH_25
X-Scanned-By: MIMEDefang version 2.48 (www . roaringpenguin . com / mimedefang) on 127.0.0.1
Delivered-To: 240665-done@bugs.debian.org
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 2.60-bugs.debian.org_2005_01_02
(1.212-2003-09-23-exp) on spohr.debian.org
X-Spam-Status: No, hits=-3.0 required=4.0 tests=BAYES_00 autolearn=no
version=2.60-bugs.debian.org_2005_01_02
X-Spam-Level:
Hi,
Yes, there are cases where depending on a split off package is
a good idea. In other cases, it defeats the whole point of splitting
the package off. The decision needs to be made on a case by case
basis, and the maintainer who decided to split the packages off is
probably the best judge of the situation, rather than a hard coded
directive in the technical policy.
While it may be a good thing to remind people that preserving
functionality on a dist-upgrade is desirable, we should not need
policy to tell us that quality of implementation ought to be a
priority, just like we should not need policy to tell us not to
create buggy packages.
If you feel this is needed, please report a wishlist bug
against developers-reference to add pros and cons and the various
criteria for deciding whether or not to add a dependency for split of
packages.
Also, this report never got any seconds, and had a lot of
dissent, which, when added to the above, does not bode well for the
proposal ;-).
I am closing this report.
manoj
--
Do not underestimate the value of print statements for debugging.
Manoj Srivastava <srivasta@debian.org> <http://www.debian.org/%7Esrivasta/>
1024D/BF24424C print 4966 F272 D093 B493 410B 924B 21BA DABB BF24 424C
Reply to: