[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: How are things going?

On Tue, 2006-09-26 at 21:13:23 +0200, Nicolas François wrote:
> On Tue, Sep 26, 2006 at 03:53:06AM -0400, Joey Hess wrote:
> > I'm rather worried that there's been no apparent progress on getting
> > Ian's Breaks support merged in, especially since in my limited
> > understanding it's already present in Ubuntu and presumably being used
> > there. That doesn't seem very good for cross-distro package
> > compatability if our dpkg ignores the field.

> The first patches were applied in the dpkg's repository.
> This means that the svn version should support packages using Breaks (I
> mean not reject them, but they will not use the content of these fields).

> IIRC, the same remains to be done for dselect.

I've applied it now, I was just waiting until contacting the release team,
to revert the other part or commit the missing one, depending on the
outcome of their decision.

> Before going farther, the next step must be pushing 1.13.22 to testing.
> It was locked in unstable because of the perl RC bug, which caused dpkg to
> This version of dpkg is now in unstable since more than 3 months and
> should have receive enough tests. I'm CCing debian-release to see if this
> version can be pushed to testing.

Yes, please.

> Regarding the next dpkg version, the patch is quite large, but it's mostly
> l10n stuff. Would the current 1.13.23 be acceptable to bypass the dpkg
> freeze? [1]

I've created a diff[2] with the new commited stuff and removed all
autogenerated things (I've not removed the comment changes for
completeness). Debian chanelog and upstream ChangeLog are in the
header of the patch.

Basically the changes are:

  * The tar 'nul' warning fix.
  * The Breaks field.
  * Using dpkg-architecture from the source instead of duping its
    logic in the m4 files (this is kind of a requisite for the armel
    architecture introduction).
  * Comments or new line fixes.

There's few changes I may want to make to dpkg, which I'd like to
request permission first to avoid commiting changes that will not be
approved, but I'll send a separete mail about those later.

[2] <http://people.debian.org/~guillem/dpkg/dpkg-1.13.22-1.13.23.diff>


Reply to: