On Wed, Mar 31, 2010 at 08:47:28PM +0900, Osamu Aoki wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On Wed, Mar 31, 2010 at 11:18:30AM +0200, Raphael Hertzog wrote:
> > On Wed, 31 Mar 2010, Niels Thykier wrote:
> > > That being said, I would (as it is now) actually prefer that it was
> > > just a helper tool that from a VCS could derive a source package of
> > > existing format. That would probably also increase the adoption rate,
> > > since existing tools would work with those formats.
> >
> > The (theoretical) format that I gave as example was precisely this: it
> > generates a "3.0 (quilt)" source package using a VCS repository as input.
>
> I guess what we should have is additional line in it or additional file
> to record vcs used for packaging which will not interface with the basic
> operation of other tools.

You mean Vcs-* in debian/control?

--
James
GPG Key: 1024D/61326D40 2003-09-02 James Vega <jamessan@debian.org>

Steve Langasek wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 25, 2010 at 02:03:09PM +0100, Raphael Hertzog wrote:
>>[...]
>> In the general case, switching is a small effort for sure, but in the case
>> pointed out by Neil (he won't convert packages with no patches because he
>> doesn't see the benefit) the effort is almost null, just create the file
>> debian/source/format with "3.0 (quilt)" and you're done.
>
> Aside from all the packaging tools that aren't quite there yet with 3.0
> support, 3.0 packages break two cheap generic tools that I used to be able
> to use to inspect source packages: zless, and interdiff. While this loss
> doesn't outweigh the benefits, this is certainly not "win-win", and I would
> appreciate it if you would try to be more understanding of developers'
> natural resistance to this change.
>

Hi

I recently created a script to diff two 3.0 source packages, which I am
submitting to devscripts (see #575395). It is also able to diff 1.0 vs
3.0 (quilt) by converting the latter to an 1.0 like format and
interdiff'ing them for you.
If you are interested in it, you can prefetch it from [1]; I certainly
could use some feedback on it.

I will also be looking into providing a way to easily review a single
3.0 package (which would be #575394); suggestions are also welcome for that.

~Niels

[1] Script:
http://www.student.dtu.dk/~s072425/debian/qdebdiff
Doc:
http://www.student.dtu.dk/~s072425/debian/qdebdiff.html

On 30 March 2010 16:46, Sven Mueller <debian@incase.de> wrote:
> My main reason for not yet switching is that hg-buildpackage and
> svn-buildpackage don't completely support the 3.0 format yet as far as I
> can tell.

You can try out mercurial-buildpackage, where I have tried to support
"3.0 (quilt)" as good as I could: the default branch contains the
fully patched source code as well as the explicit debian/patches.
That way you can just hack away anywhere in your package and
repeatedly run mercurial-buildpackage until you are satisfied, and
then finally rename the dpkg-source autogenerated patch to something
meaningful. But I would like to hear suggestions for improvements...

Ohh, and thanks to Raphael Hertzog for doing all the hard work on the
new formats!

Cheers,
--
Jens Peter Secher.
_DD6A 05B0 174E BFB2 D4D9 B52E 0EE5 978A FE63 E8A1 jpsecher gmail com_.
A. Because it breaks the logical sequence of discussion.
Q. Why is top posting bad?


--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-REQUEST@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org
Archive: x2wc4f47b5b1003311704w73e6efafha33f5ecfd4d8830b@ma il.gmail.com">http://lists.debian.org/x2wc4f47b5b1003311704w73e6efafha33f5ecfd4d8830b@ma il.gmail.com

On Wed, Mar 31, 2010 at 09:01:31AM -0400, James Vega wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 31, 2010 at 08:47:28PM +0900, Osamu Aoki wrote:
> > Hi,
> >
> > On Wed, Mar 31, 2010 at 11:18:30AM +0200, Raphael Hertzog wrote:
> > > On Wed, 31 Mar 2010, Niels Thykier wrote:
> > > > That being said, I would (as it is now) actually prefer that it was
> > > > just a helper tool that from a VCS could derive a source package of
> > > > existing format. That would probably also increase the adoption rate,
> > > > since existing tools would work with those formats.
> > >
> > > The (theoretical) format that I gave as example was precisely this: it
> > > generates a "3.0 (quilt)" source package using a VCS repository as input.
> >
> > I guess what we should have is additional line in it or additional file
> > to record vcs used for packaging which will not interface with the basic
> > operation of other tools.
>
> You mean Vcs-* in debian/control?

I thought Raphael's idea on the (theoretical) format was a bit more than
recording VCS repository site but how VCS is used as imput to the packaging.

In any case, I am for not-adding too-much-complication if we can live
without them.

Osamu



--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-REQUEST@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org
Archive: 20100401163822.GB11449@osamu.debian.net">http://lists.debian.org/20100401163822.GB11449@osamu.debian.net

Hi!

On Fri, 2010-03-26 at 09:25:38 +0100, Raphael Hertzog wrote:
> On Fri, 26 Mar 2010, Neil Williams wrote:
> > Now all I need is for dpkg to accept that the absence of
> > debian/source/format is declarative of source format 1.0.
>
> That's the case _for now_.
>
> > packages don't need to be changed merely to state the obvious.
>
> They need because the dpkg maintainers have decided that it might
> not be the case indefinitely.

Few things first. I don't think we should “ever� remove extraction
support for older formats (be it source or binary), we should be able to
easily analyze older content. We might want to remove creation support
for older formats at some point in the *distant* future, though. And I
don't really see any problem with that, we routinely remove support for
deprecated stuff all over the place in Debian, given proper transition
periods.

I understand Raphaël's eagerness to see a fast switch, given his
investment on the new formats, and as I obviously consider them a big
improvement too. But I don't think it's appropriate to rush it, when we
are just at the beginning of being able to use newer source formats,
when there's still things being polished on them, for easier use, for
different workflows, etc; when higher level tools support is still
immature. It has neither seemed appropriate some of the excessively
combative, aggressive and personal comments recently seen, when I think
there's been will to accommodate for changes to the formats and tools.

So, even if the uptake seems pretty fast, I agree it's still too soon
to even show warnings. Once (and if) the archive has switched a big
proportion, then we can start warning that the format needs to be
explicit (lintian mostly, dpkg-source's current warning is not really
visible anyway so I think it's fine to leave it there). And only when
a tiny fraction is still using 1.0, and only then, we can _consider_,
after appropriate debate, a possible plan for a removal of source
format 1.0 creation.

regards,
guillem


--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-REQUEST@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org
Archive: 20100519062140.GA19573@gaara.hadrons.org">http://lists.debian.org/20100519062140.GA19573@gaara.hadrons.org