Re: RFS: ruby-mocha
On 02/04/11 at 17:14 -0700, Antonio Terceiro wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Lucas Nussbaum escreveu isso aí:
> > On 31/03/11 at 10:52 -0700, Antonio Terceiro wrote:
> > > Hi,
> > >
> > > I need one DD to upload ruby-mocha. It is in our new set of git
> > > repositories, more specifically at:
> > >
> > > git+ssh://git.debian.org/git/pkg-ruby-extras/ruby-mocha.git
> > >
> > > I will be able to do further uploads on my on as a DM.
> > >
> > > After the package enters the archive, I will request the removal of
> > > the libmocha-ruby*.
> >
> > Looks quite good.
> > Have you tested upgrades? I'm wondering whether we shouldn't add
> > transition packages (and have have an helper too that generates the
> > debian/control entry for those metapackages, since we will have lots of
> > them).
>
> Good point. Actually, using transitional packages would be the only way
> to get the packages upgraded automatically in the case they were
> installed directly (as opposed to installed as a dependency of other
> package).
>
> On the other hand, having the transitional packages will defeat one of
> our objectives: to have no lib*-ruby packages in the archive. Also, if
> we do use transitional packages you will end up with *a lot* of them in
> the archive.
>
> I saved the list of binary packages listed in the output of your UDD CGI
> script on /tmp/packages and checked how many transitional packages we
> would need:
>
> $ sed -e '/^lib/!d; s/1.8//; s/1.9.1//' /tmp/packages | sort -u | wc -l
> 363
>
> Since ruby-foo would Replace/Provide/Conflict with libfoo-ruby,
> libfoo-ruby1.8 and libfoo-ruby1.9.1, then I removed the version suffixes
> and then obtained the list of unique library names.
>
> IMO using transitional packages would be OK for a few packages, but
> having 363 transitional packages seems dirty to me.
>
> Alternatively, we could do the following for every ruby-foo packages
> that gets in the archive:
>
> 0) Ping maintainers of reverse dependencies and ask them to depend on
> ruby-foo instead of libfoo-ruby
>
> 1) Request removal of libfoo-ruby from the archive. Even non-updated
> dependencies on libfoo-ruby will then be provided by ruby-foo anyway.
>
> Additionally, we could also provide a tool (update-debian-ruby?) that
> detects all lib*-ruby* installed on the system and proposes the user to
> install the equivalent ruby.* packages (what would then trigger the
> removal of lib*-ruby* packages).
I think that the only correct Debian way to ensure clean upgrades is to
provide transition packages, unfortunately. Of course, we should also
ensure that r-deps use the ruby-foo packages, but there are many ruby
packages that have no r-deps, or that are often used without r-deps.
The good thing is that the transitional packages can go away as soon as
wheezy is released...
- Lucas
Reply to: