Bug#793876: RFS: chrony/1.31.1-1
Le jeu. 27 août 2015 à 21:58, Paul Gevers <elbrus@debian.org> a
écrit :
Hi Vincent,
Hi Paul,
On 24-08-15 23:52, Vincent Blut wrote:
Which file do you have in common with ntp? Please re-read ¹.
I guess I’ve been misled by § 7.6.2! The previous section
shows the
usage of the 'replaces:' field for packages providing *files*
already
provided by another package. However, the section 7.6.2 seems to
be
for *packages* that /do conflict/; I interpreted that /do
conflict/
by "packages providing the same functionality". I even was quite
sure
my interpretation was correct after seeing the usage example
about
MTAs.
I didn't check if ntp is also doing the conflicts/replaces/provides
dance on time-deamon. If so I than you don't need to mention ntp
specifically at all¹¹.
It does not. There is still an opened bug report² about adding ntp
to
the time-daemon
virtual package, but the discussion has stalled since few years now.
Anyway, depending on your answer, I’ll revert this commit.
Lets not do that until we agree. :)
Ok.
Hmm, so I believe "Conflicts" or maybe even "Breaks" is indeed enough.
Once ntp provides time-daemon, that can be removed as well.
Ok, I'll revert to where we were previously then (i.e. just conflict on
ntp).
Oh, you not understanding me makes sense. It was me who didn't
understand what you were doing. I was assuming there now was a new
mechanism, but now you explained it is just a better
implementation of
"the same thing". But then again, maybe make that a little clearer
in
your changelog for others like me?
Ok, maybe adding something like:
“Basically, this directive makes the detection of the standard
(Local or
UTC time) set in /etc/adjtime — and used by the hardware clock
— clearer
compared to the text processing method we used to use in the post
install
script to complete the same task.”
What do you think?
Sounds like some good text (but maybe a little long for the
changelog. I
believe the NEWS file is there for this purpose.
Then it'll be in a NEWS file ;-)
Can you please explain me how commit 1ce86d3 works (the Breaks
of
util-linux).
As the hwclockfile directive can only deal with /etc/adjtime, we
need
to ensure that we migrated from /etc/default/rcS to
/etc/adjtime. To
be honest, I’m not sure that break is even needed, because this
migration happened prior to Wheezy.
I haven't looked it up, is util-linux in essential? Otherwise,
shouldn't
you depend on it with the higher than dependency?
Indeed, util-linux is essential hence the fact it is not listed in
the
'Depends:' field.
Thus I think "Depends: util-linux (>= 2.20.1-5) is more correct. It is
in essential, but you require a version higher than possible (when was
2.20.1-5 introduced?).
It was uploaded prior to Wheezy, on May 17, 2012.
You confirm my ideas here. But as I mentioned in my other mail
(below),
I challenge you to come up with a way to run them which is
acceptable in
Debian's autopkgtest framework.
Challenge accepted, but I’ll have to document myself about
autopkgtest,
especially on the integration of upstream tests.
Great. Not needed for this upload per se.
So, please fix the dependencies in git (I don't need the dsc, just
ping
me when your done) and I will build and upload.
Great, thanks Paul for your reviews, will ping you in the next few days!
Paul
Cheers,
Vincent
Reply to: