Re: Updated python-support
* Josselin Mouette (joss@debian.org) [060619 13:03]:
> Le lundi 19 juin 2006 à 12:09 +0200, Andreas Barth a écrit :
> > Eh, I'm sure you can explain where somebody messed up with dpkg's
> > database? What you can see is "only" that some programs postinst failed
> > to run successfully. You can get the same results with just calling
> > /bin/false inside of postinst.
>
> Calling /bin/false doesn't entirely break the system.
It seems that you are unaware with the way dpkg works. If a package's
postinst fails, the package is marked is unconfigured. Any dependent
packages are also not configured after that.
This is what happend, and this is what would happen with /bin/false as
postinst also.
> > WTF? We discussed that in Mexico, we agreed on that in Mexico, and now
> > you tell us that you just decided by yourself you don't want to follow
> > the new policy any more? Is there any serious reason for it, or do you
> > just feel like it?
>
> I told you in Mexico the XS-Python-Version field was not a good idea,
> but made this concession so that we could agree. However concessions are
> only good when made on both sides.
What do you want to tell me with that? Do you want to say that you
intended to break that concession after being back? (And BTW, why
"concession"? I have the target to get as good as possible python
packages, not to defend my special ideas.)
> > > (No, this specific point doesn't conform to the new python policy, but
> > > this policy is only a draft and I don't see a reason to stick to it
> > > while it hasn't been widely implemented, especially when there are
> > > better solutions.)
> >
> > The policy is valid enough. You must not violate it in such an way, and
> > "that there are better solutions" is just your claim at the moment.
>
> This policy is poorly designed.
Why didn't you say so in Mexico? (And "say so" includes saying in a way
that makes us other stop assuming all people can at least live with the
outcome of the discussion.)
> Why do you think it can't be improved?
Breaking and improving are different words.
> > Please stop throwing shit on Matthias. Uploads of a package with a
> > really silly mistake happen. Nobody wants them, nobody enjoys them, but
> > they still happen.
>
> Packaging mistakes usually don't entirely break the user's system.
This mistake didn't break the full system. It just prevented other
packages being configured. And that happens when ...
> This
> is what happens when there's a bug in python-central, and this will
> happen again. This turns "serious" bugs into "critical" ones.
... any package high up in the dependency chain has a bug in postinst.
As a buildd maintainer, I have seen such issues more than once,
unfortunatly. That's nothing special, it is just that python depends on
python-central.
Cheers,
Andi
--
http://home.arcor.de/andreas-barth/
Reply to: