On Thu, Mar 25, 2010 at 12:49:55PM +0100, Raphael Hertzog wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Responding to http://www.linux.codehelp.co.uk/serendipity/index.php?/archives/201-lintian,-source-format-3.0-and-blog-comments.html:

Thanks, Raphael, for bringing this to a proper place!

> 1/ Instead of taking 30 minutes to explain why you don't care of the new
> formats, it would have been way more useful to apply the patch
> sitting in http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=388567
> where multiple people prodded you for an upload.

I must say here that I'm at least partially to blame for this. I said I
would take care of it and never really did when I got too involved with
other activities. We had someone interested in changing more svn-bp
stuff to make support of multiple formats easier in general but that
seems to have stalled as well.

Neil is maintainer of the package but I'm listed as uploader and as such
will now discuss with them an upload of svn-bp with your patch applied.

Hauke

Mike Hommey wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 25, 2010 at 12:49:55PM +0100, Raphael Hertzog wrote:
>> 2/ You explain that you have no reason to switch to the new formats. Fine.
>> I have explained you that I believe there are good reasons for
>> switching (I won't repeat the wiki page). Why are you insisting to not
>> switch when the effort to change is so low in packages without patches?
>> Do you have technical reasons to explicitly avoid the new formats?
>
> Why are you insisting that all DDs should switch when switching is an
> effort for no benefit[1] and not switching is no effort at all ?
>

I don't think that Raphael's mail was meant to insist on "you all have to
use the new source format" but rather to correct/try to understand Niel's
blogpost. Even if you don't like the new source format, I find that
insisting on "not using" it with no reason¹ and saying that out loud is
quite counterproductive.

Besides, may I remind you the existence of this page
http://wiki.debian.org/ReleaseGoals/NewDebFormats ?

¹: I didn't find any real reason in the mentioned blogpost.

Cheers,

--
Mehdi Dogguy مهدي الدڤي
http://dogguy.org/


--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-REQUEST@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org
Archive: 4BAB55F1.7040107@dogguy.org">http://lists.debian.org/4BAB55F1.7040107@dogguy.org

On Thu, Mar 25, 2010 at 01:24:17PM +0100, Mehdi Dogguy wrote:
> Mike Hommey wrote:
> > On Thu, Mar 25, 2010 at 12:49:55PM +0100, Raphael Hertzog wrote:
> >> 2/ You explain that you have no reason to switch to the new formats. Fine.
> >> I have explained you that I believe there are good reasons for
> >> switching (I won't repeat the wiki page). Why are you insisting to not
> >> switch when the effort to change is so low in packages without patches?
> >> Do you have technical reasons to explicitly avoid the new formats?
> >
> > Why are you insisting that all DDs should switch when switching is an
> > effort for no benefit[1] and not switching is no effort at all ?
> >
>
> I don't think that Raphael's mail was meant to insist on "you all have to
> use the new source format" but rather to correct/try to understand Niel's
> blogpost. Even if you don't like the new source format, I find that
> insisting on "not using" it with no reason¹ and saying that out loud is
> quite counterproductive.
>
> Besides, may I remind you the existence of this page
> http://wiki.debian.org/ReleaseGoals/NewDebFormats ?

May I remind that several persons pointed out this was not a good goal ?

Mike


--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-REQUEST@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org
Archive: 20100325123048.GA5793@glandium.org">http://lists.debian.org/20100325123048.GA5793@glandium.org

Mike Hommey wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 25, 2010 at 01:24:17PM +0100, Mehdi Dogguy wrote:
[…]
>> Besides, may I remind you the existence of this page
>> http://wiki.debian.org/ReleaseGoals/NewDebFormats ?
>
> May I remind that several persons pointed out this was not a good goal ?
>

This is not a reason to diminish someone else's work, IMHO. And whether
this is a good goal or not is not the subject of this thread.

--
Mehdi Dogguy مهدي الدڤي
http://dogguy.org/


--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-REQUEST@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org
Archive: 4BAB597F.6040705@dogguy.org">http://lists.debian.org/4BAB597F.6040705@dogguy.org

On Thu, Mar 25, 2010 at 12:58:39PM +0100, Mike Hommey wrote:
> Why are you insisting that all DDs should switch when switching is an
> effort for no benefit[1] and not switching is no effort at all ?

In fact, I don't feel this is the point [1]. The new lintian warning,
which triggered the various blog posts, simply complains about the lack
of _explicit_ information about which is the source package format in
the tested package. In general, making explicit information that was
implicit before, is a good thing.

No matter how much the new format is liked/disliked, it is a fact that
we currently have more than one source format supported by our
toolchain, from dpkg up to dak. As a maintainer, I'm happy to have a way
to make explicit the format I want to use for my package, rather than
relying on an external default value which is not under my
control. Since the goal of having such default explicit seems a
worthwhile one to me, I'm also happy that lintian reminds me about that.

Cheers.

[1] hey, I want to join the "you're missing the point" club :-)

--
Stefano Zacchiroli -o- PhD in Computer Science PostDoc @ Univ. Paris 7
zack@{upsilon.cc,pps.jussieu.fr,debian.org} -<>- http://upsilon.cc/zack/
Dietro un grande uomo c'è ..| . |. Et ne m'en veux pas si je te tutoie
sempre uno zaino ...........| ..: |.... Je dis tu à tous ceux que j'aime

On Thu, 25 Mar 2010, Mike Hommey wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 25, 2010 at 12:49:55PM +0100, Raphael Hertzog wrote:
> > 2/ You explain that you have no reason to switch to the new formats. Fine.
> > I have explained you that I believe there are good reasons for
> > switching (I won't repeat the wiki page). Why are you insisting to not
> > switch when the effort to change is so low in packages without patches?
> > Do you have technical reasons to explicitly avoid the new formats?
>
> Why are you insisting that all DDs should switch when switching is an
> effort for no benefit[1] and not switching is no effort at all ?

I believe there's a benefit in standardizing on a set of improved source formats.

There might be not short term benefit for the current maintainer, but
it's a benefit for our derivatives distributions to be able to simply add
patches in a consistent manner. It will also be a benefit for Debian if in
2 years some newbie packager doesn't have to learn about the limitations
of the source format 1.0 when they try to add an icon to a source package
or when they package a new upstream version that is now bzip2 compressed.

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.

Cheers,
--
Raphaël Hertzog

Like what I do? Sponsor me: http://ouaza.com/wp/2010/01/05/5-years-of-freexian/
My Debian goals: http://ouaza.com/wp/2010/01/09/debian-related-goals-for-2010/


--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-REQUEST@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org
Archive: 20100325130309.GC3588@rivendell">http://lists.debian.org/20100325130309.GC3588@rivendell

On Thu, Mar 25, 2010 at 02:03:09PM +0100, Raphael Hertzog wrote:
> On Thu, 25 Mar 2010, Mike Hommey wrote:
> > On Thu, Mar 25, 2010 at 12:49:55PM +0100, Raphael Hertzog wrote:
> > > 2/ You explain that you have no reason to switch to the new formats. Fine.
> > > I have explained you that I believe there are good reasons for
> > > switching (I won't repeat the wiki page). Why are you insisting to not
> > > switch when the effort to change is so low in packages without patches?
> > > Do you have technical reasons to explicitly avoid the new formats?

> > Why are you insisting that all DDs should switch when switching is an
> > effort for no benefit[1] and not switching is no effort at all ?

> I believe there's a benefit in standardizing on a set of improved source
> formats.

But you clearly have not convinced all maintainers of this; based on past
list discussions, I would suggest that there isn't even consensus on this,
let alone unanimity.

And the lintian warning goes away by explicitly setting source format to 1,
so that's not standardizing on the "set of improved source formats"
/anyway/, that's just nagging maintainers to make a change to their packages
that AFAICS only helps your real goal if they actually *convert* the package
to 3.0 in the process. I think trying to use lintian as a cudgel here is
counterproductive, particularly so long as the 3.0 format is still not
supported as well as 1.0 by all the peripheral packaging tools.

Please understand that I'm not /opposed/ to the conversion to 3.0; in fact,
for a new package the Debian Samba team just uploaded that has a .tar.bz2
upstream, we've recognized the advantages of using 3.0 (quilt) and when I
ran into snags in the surrounding package toolchain I submitted patches.
But the 3.0 transition should be done the way such transitions in Debian are
always done - gradually, and respectful of our maintainers' investments in
the existing tools. Thus far, I don't think you have a critical mass of
mindshare behind 3.0, and I think it's wrong (and self-defeating) to try to
force that.

> There might be not short term benefit for the current maintainer, but
> it's a benefit for our derivatives distributions to be able to simply add
> patches in a consistent manner.

Which derivative distribution has asked for this? Speaking with my Ubuntu
hat on, the sudden arrival of 3.0 in sid (yes, we knew it was coming
eventually, but had no inkling of a probable timeline until it was already
done) has been nothing but a hassle for us, requiring a sudden allocation of
resources to let the Launchpad archive handle 3.0 packages /at all/, and
leaving tools like merges.ubuntu.com broken for several months until someone
could find the time to make them work with 3.0.

So please don't claim to be speaking for derivatives here. I think you're
being patronizing to both DDs *and* derivatives by telling them you know
what's best for them.

> It will also be a benefit for Debian if in 2 years some newbie packager
> doesn't have to learn about the limitations of the source format 1.0 when
> they try to add an icon to a source package or when they package a new
> upstream version that is now bzip2 compressed.

> 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.

--
Steve Langasek Give me a lever long enough and a Free OS
Debian Developer to set it on, and I can move the world.
Ubuntu Developer http://www.debian.org/
slangasek@ubuntu.com vorlon@debian.org

Le jeudi 25 mars 2010 Ã* 06:36 -0700, Steve Langasek a écrit :
> Which derivative distribution has asked for this? Speaking with my Ubuntu
> hat on, the sudden arrival of 3.0 in sid (yes, we knew it was coming
> eventually, but had no inkling of a probable timeline until it was already
> done) has been nothing but a hassle for us, requiring a sudden allocation of
> resources to let the Launchpad archive handle 3.0 packages /at all/, and
> leaving tools like merges.ubuntu.com broken for several months until someone
> could find the time to make them work with 3.0.

While it is interesting to know that the lack of Ubuntu involvement into
Debian can also lead to major breakage on your side, I fail to see how
it relates to the point made by Raphaël. In the long term, having a
unified patching system *will* make things easier for derived
distributions.

Cheers,
--
.'`. Josselin Mouette
: :' :
`. `' “A handshake with whitnesses is the same
`- as a signed contact.� -- Jörg Schilling


--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-REQUEST@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org
Archive: 1269527951.31081.18.camel@meh">http://lists.debian.org/1269527951.31081.18.camel@meh

On Thu, 25 Mar 2010, Steve Langasek wrote:
> And the lintian warning goes away by explicitly setting source format to 1,
> so that's not standardizing on the "set of improved source formats"
> /anyway/, that's just nagging maintainers to make a change to their packages
> that AFAICS only helps your real goal if they actually *convert* the package
> to 3.0 in the process. I think trying to use lintian as a cudgel here is
> counterproductive, particularly so long as the 3.0 format is still not
> supported as well as 1.0 by all the peripheral packaging tools.

If you read the lintian bug report (#566820), I requested a "pedantic" tag
that would be emitted if it's still using "1.0" even in that case. Russ
removed that because it's too soon for this according to him. I'm fine
with this decision.

As far as the peripheral packaging tools, which ones are really blocking
the adoption of the new source format?

Note that the lintian message specifically requests to contact us if you
decide to stick with 1.0 for such a technical reason. That's done that way
so that I can help resolve those problems. No later than this morning I
contacted the launchpad guys to allow new source formats in karmic PPA
because one DD continued to use 1.0 for this reason.

The other major blocker that I heard is backports.org not accepting the
new source formats and the backports.org maintainer is not willing to
upgrade dak, he prefers to wait until it's host below debian.org.

> But the 3.0 transition should be done the way such transitions in Debian are
> always done - gradually, and respectful of our maintainers' investments in
> the existing tools. Thus far, I don't think you have a critical mass of
> mindshare behind 3.0, and I think it's wrong (and self-defeating) to try to
> force that.

I fully respect the decision of people that are using tools that do not
cope with the new source formats (or that have workflows that do not
integrate well with the new source formats) but I'm annoyed by people who
are staying with the old format without giving a valid reason (that's what
triggered this thread).

> > 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.

So it breaks some of your habits. I can understand that and it's precisely
the kind of feedback that I want so that I can ensure that we have tools
that make it easier for you to deal with the new formats.

Do you have found replacement tools that suit you or is there still a need
for improved tools here?

For interdiff most people switched to "debdiff" but it has the
disadvantage to include the upstream change when the upstream version
changed. Maybe it should grow a --debian-dir option to only compare
the debian directory ? (In that case, it could also lead to an
optimization when comparing two 3.0 packages because you can only unpack
the debian.tar instead of unpacking the full source package)

For zless, people seem to open the debian.tar with vim or similar but I
can understand that it's less usable than a simple pager view of the
relevant files. Maybe it's a good idea to provide a debreview/debinspect
command in devscripts that would show the files in debian/ in a
standardized order that facilitates the review?

I'm going to fill wishlist bugs against devscripts for this: #575394 and
#575395

Cheers,
--
Raphaël Hertzog

Like what I do? Sponsor me: http://ouaza.com/wp/2010/01/05/5-years-of-freexian/
My Debian goals: http://ouaza.com/wp/2010/01/09/debian-related-goals-for-2010/


--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-REQUEST@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org
Archive: 20100325150759.GD3588@rivendell">http://lists.debian.org/20100325150759.GD3588@rivendell

On Thu, Mar 25, 2010 at 04:07:59PM +0100, Raphael Hertzog wrote:

> For zless, people seem to open the debian.tar with vim or similar but I
> can understand that it's less usable than a simple pager view of the
> relevant files. Maybe it's a good idea to provide a debreview/debinspect
> command in devscripts that would show the files in debian/ in a
> standardized order that facilitates the review?

This is only really helpful on systems with Debian tools installed -
speaking personally my one of my most common use cases for inspecting
the Debian diff with less is to do so on random systems I don't admin
(or ask other people who don't have anything to do with Debian to do so).


--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-REQUEST@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org
Archive: 20100325151308.GB7754@sirena.org.uk">http://lists.debian.org/20100325151308.GB7754@sirena.org.uk