FAQ Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read
» Video Reviews

» Linux Archive

Linux-archive is a website aiming to archive linux email lists and to make them easily accessible for linux users/developers.


» Sponsor

» Partners

» Sponsor

Go Back   Linux Archive > Debian > Debian Development

 
 
LinkBack Thread Tools
 
Old 11-27-2011, 04:44 PM
Luk Claes
 
Default Lintian ERROR saying dpatch is obsolete

On 11/27/2011 06:22 PM, Margarita Manterola wrote:
> Hey,

Hi Marga

> Recently [1], dpatch's maintainer uploaded a new version indicating
> that dpatch is now deprecated. Following that, he filed a bug [2] so
> that lintian might warn that dpatch's makefile has been deprecated
> since 2003, and that dpatch itself is now deprecated. However, he
> also stated that he plans to keep dpatch for wheezy.

Keeping dpatch for wheezy seems logical as it will be very hard to get
all the packages migrated before the freeze.

> [1]: http://packages.qa.debian.org/d/dpatch/news/20111024T000209Z.html
> [2]: bugs.debian.org/646420
>
> A week ago [3], a new lintian version was uploaded that gives an error
> if a package build-depends on dpatch, because it's 'obsolete'.

dpatch was added to the obsolete packages one can build depend on
apparently.

> [3] http://packages.qa.debian.org/l/lintian/news/20111121T230326Z.html
>
> I find this a bit shocking, since an error with lintian tends to be
> quite a big deal, and there are currently more than a thousand
> packages that build-depend on dpatch. It's been only a month since the
> upload stating that it's deprecated, and it's still going to be there
> for wheezy... Wouldn't it be better to make it a warning now, and an
> error after wheezy is released?

This is non trivial as it would also affect the other obsolete build
dependencies as a starter.

Besides it would be great that everyone uploading has a big reminder to
switch away from dpatch. Switching to v3 quilt should be easy.

> I'm CCing debian-devel mainly so that other maintainers of 1087
> packages build-depending on dpatch find out about this deprecation.
> Finding out about it through a lintian error was quite surprising to
> me.

Right, it could have been better communicated. Thanks for bringing it up
on d-devel!

Personally I do think it does not harm that it's a lintian error instead
of a warning though.

Cheers

Luk


--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-REQUEST@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org
Archive: 4ED276E4.1020301@debian.org">http://lists.debian.org/4ED276E4.1020301@debian.org
 
Old 11-27-2011, 05:59 PM
Gergely Nagy
 
Default Lintian ERROR saying dpatch is obsolete

Margarita Manterola <margamanterola@gmail.com> writes:

> Recently [1], dpatch's maintainer uploaded a new version indicating
> that dpatch is now deprecated. Following that, he filed a bug [2] so
> that lintian might warn that dpatch's makefile has been deprecated
> since 2003, and that dpatch itself is now deprecated. However, he
> also stated that he plans to keep dpatch for wheezy.

Just for the record, to reiterate what I have said previously[1], dpatch
will be kept around until it can be removed safely: when all reverse
build-depends have been migrated to something else.

[1]: http://lists.debian.org/debian-devel/2011/08/msg00380.html

That certainly won't happen before wheezy, and is unlikely to happen for
wheezy+1, too. My plan still is to phase out dpatch by wheezy+2, but
until then, it's a legacy that should be migrated away from, and must
not be used for new packages.

> [1]: http://packages.qa.debian.org/d/dpatch/news/20111024T000209Z.html
> [2]: bugs.debian.org/646420
>
> A week ago [3], a new lintian version was uploaded that gives an error
> if a package build-depends on dpatch, because it's 'obsolete'.

While I originally filed a request to get the dpatch makefile into the
obsolete makefiles list, later discussion on IRC (I think on #debian-qa)
led to upping that request, and making it an "error" to build-depend on
dpatch.

The reason for this is two-fold: I'd rather not want any new packages to
use dpatch, and a lintian error is scary enough to discourage
people. Second, it's an error that can be safely ignored or overridden
for the time being.

> I find this a bit shocking, since an error with lintian tends to be
> quite a big deal, and there are currently more than a thousand
> packages that build-depend on dpatch. It's been only a month since the
> upload stating that it's deprecated, and it's still going to be there
> for wheezy... Wouldn't it be better to make it a warning now, and an
> error after wheezy is released?

It wouldn't make much of a difference in the long run. Making it a
warning would've needed more work on lintian's side, and I do not
believe it would've been worth the effort.

> I'm CCing debian-devel mainly so that other maintainers of 1087
> packages build-depending on dpatch find out about this deprecation.
> Finding out about it through a lintian error was quite surprising to
> me.

It was briefly announced in august[1] already, that dpatch will,
eventually, be removed.

I'm not letting anyone in the gutter, though, and early next year, I
will start slowly submitting wishlist bugs with patches against packages
that build-depend on dpatch.

So, there's nothing to worry about: if your package uses dpatch, and you
want it lintian clean, either migrate away, or ignore the error and wait
for my patch.

If you considered using dpatch for a new package... well. I'm
sorry. Don't do that.

As for communication - yes, perhaps I should've made the deprecation
more clear. I believed that a mail to debian-devel@, months in advance,
would do the job fine.

--
|8]


--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-REQUEST@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org
Archive: 87vcq5e6iy.fsf@luthien.mhp">http://lists.debian.org/87vcq5e6iy.fsf@luthien.mhp
 
Old 11-28-2011, 09:32 AM
Alexander Wirt
 
Default Lintian ERROR saying dpatch is obsolete

Gergely Nagy schrieb am Sonntag, den 27. November 2011:

Hi,

> > Recently [1], dpatch's maintainer uploaded a new version indicating
> > that dpatch is now deprecated. Following that, he filed a bug [2] so
> > that lintian might warn that dpatch's makefile has been deprecated
> > since 2003, and that dpatch itself is now deprecated. However, he
> > also stated that he plans to keep dpatch for wheezy.
>
> Just for the record, to reiterate what I have said previously[1], dpatch
> will be kept around until it can be removed safely: when all reverse
> build-depends have been migrated to something else.
>
> [1]: http://lists.debian.org/debian-devel/2011/08/msg00380.html
>
> That certainly won't happen before wheezy, and is unlikely to happen for
> wheezy+1, too. My plan still is to phase out dpatch by wheezy+2, but
> until then, it's a legacy that should be migrated away from, and must
> not be used for new packages.
Since there is no proper alternative (no quilt is not) I will continue to use
dpatch for all of my packages. If neccessary I would volunteer to take over
upstream.

So if you are just going for leftover rdeps it will probably never be
removed.

Alex


--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-REQUEST@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org
Archive: 20111128103201.GA3902@hawking.credativ.lan">http://lists.debian.org/20111128103201.GA3902@hawking.credativ.lan
 
Old 11-28-2011, 09:54 AM
Gergely Nagy
 
Default Lintian ERROR saying dpatch is obsolete

Alexander Wirt <formorer@debian.org> writes:

>> > Recently [1], dpatch's maintainer uploaded a new version indicating
>> > that dpatch is now deprecated. Following that, he filed a bug [2] so
>> > that lintian might warn that dpatch's makefile has been deprecated
>> > since 2003, and that dpatch itself is now deprecated. However, he
>> > also stated that he plans to keep dpatch for wheezy.
>>
>> Just for the record, to reiterate what I have said previously[1], dpatch
>> will be kept around until it can be removed safely: when all reverse
>> build-depends have been migrated to something else.
>>
>> [1]: http://lists.debian.org/debian-devel/2011/08/msg00380.html
>>
>> That certainly won't happen before wheezy, and is unlikely to happen for
>> wheezy+1, too. My plan still is to phase out dpatch by wheezy+2, but
>> until then, it's a legacy that should be migrated away from, and must
>> not be used for new packages.
> Since there is no proper alternative (no quilt is not) I will continue to use
> dpatch for all of my packages. If neccessary I would volunteer to take over
> upstream.

I'd rather figure out what makes dpatch better than quilt for your
use-cases, and go from there.

My goal is not to force people when they really don't have an
alternative - I want to find an alternative for these cases. The lintian
check is mostly there for those cases where an alternative exists, but
it wasn't migrated to out of, lets say, lack of motivation.

> So if you are just going for leftover rdeps it will probably never be
> removed.

Nope, I'm not going only for leftover rdeps. I'll investigate the harder
cases too, where migration is either non-trivial, or it involves finding
a suitable alternative (be that quilt, something built around quilt, or
something completely different).

I planned to do this by first getting rid of the easy ones, but if
people who prefer dpatch over other solutions step up and tell me up
front why they're happy with dpatch, and unhappy with the things I
consider alternatives, so much the better!

While you did mention on IRC that you're unhappy with quilt, and prefer
dpatch over it, I'm afraid I don't remember the reasons why that is
so. If you could share those, that would be very welcomed.

And anyone else, who dislikes my decision of deprecating dpatch: let me
know why you prefer dpatch over, say, quilt. The goal is not to make our
lives miserable, but to fix up the alternatives to be as good, or
better, than dpatch.

--
|8]


--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-REQUEST@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org
Archive: 87sjl85xgz.fsf@algernon.balabit">http://lists.debian.org/87sjl85xgz.fsf@algernon.balabit
 
Old 11-28-2011, 09:55 AM
Raphael Hertzog
 
Default Lintian ERROR saying dpatch is obsolete

On Mon, 28 Nov 2011, Alexander Wirt wrote:
> Since there is no proper alternative (no quilt is not) I will continue to use
> dpatch for all of my packages.

Is it only the fact that dpatch "patches" can be scripts that justify this
assertion?

If not, I would be interested to learn why quilt is not a proper
alternative.

Cheers,
--
Raphaël Hertzog ◈ Debian Developer

Pre-order a copy of the Debian Administrator's Handbook and help
liberate it: http://debian-handbook.info/go/ulule-rh/


--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-REQUEST@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org
Archive: 20111128105525.GG3493@rivendell.home.ouaza.com">ht tp://lists.debian.org/20111128105525.GG3493@rivendell.home.ouaza.com
 
Old 11-28-2011, 10:54 AM
Alexander Wirt
 
Default Lintian ERROR saying dpatch is obsolete

Gergely Nagy schrieb am Montag, den 28. November 2011:

> Alexander Wirt <formorer@debian.org> writes:
>
> >> > Recently [1], dpatch's maintainer uploaded a new version indicating
> >> > that dpatch is now deprecated. Following that, he filed a bug [2] so
> >> > that lintian might warn that dpatch's makefile has been deprecated
> >> > since 2003, and that dpatch itself is now deprecated. However, he
> >> > also stated that he plans to keep dpatch for wheezy.
> >>
> >> Just for the record, to reiterate what I have said previously[1], dpatch
> >> will be kept around until it can be removed safely: when all reverse
> >> build-depends have been migrated to something else.
> >>
> >> [1]: http://lists.debian.org/debian-devel/2011/08/msg00380.html
> >>
> >> That certainly won't happen before wheezy, and is unlikely to happen for
> >> wheezy+1, too. My plan still is to phase out dpatch by wheezy+2, but
> >> until then, it's a legacy that should be migrated away from, and must
> >> not be used for new packages.
> > Since there is no proper alternative (no quilt is not) I will continue to use
> > dpatch for all of my packages. If neccessary I would volunteer to take over
> > upstream.
>
> I'd rather figure out what makes dpatch better than quilt for your
> use-cases, and go from there.
Usability. Hacks like .pc, or the hacks/patches it has for finding this
directory.

Dpatch is small and simple, quilt is a beast that trickled me several times
in other projects.

> Nope, I'm not going only for leftover rdeps. I'll investigate the harder
> cases too, where migration is either non-trivial, or it involves finding
> a suitable alternative (be that quilt, something built around quilt, or
> something completely different).
>
> I planned to do this by first getting rid of the easy ones, but if
> people who prefer dpatch over other solutions step up and tell me up
> front why they're happy with dpatch, and unhappy with the things I
> consider alternatives, so much the better!
Its simple and things like dpatch-edit-patch are just great. I now use dpatch
for round 8 years and it worked every time. I don't see any reason to move
away.

And I still like the "never touch a running system" approach. If dpatch works
without problems, why deprecate it?

Alex


--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-REQUEST@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org
Archive: 20111128115457.GB3902@hawking.credativ.lan">http://lists.debian.org/20111128115457.GB3902@hawking.credativ.lan
 
Old 11-28-2011, 11:00 AM
Alexander Wirt
 
Default Lintian ERROR saying dpatch is obsolete

Raphael Hertzog schrieb am Montag, den 28. November 2011:

> On Mon, 28 Nov 2011, Alexander Wirt wrote:
> > Since there is no proper alternative (no quilt is not) I will continue to use
> > dpatch for all of my packages.
>
> Is it only the fact that dpatch "patches" can be scripts that justify this
> assertion?
>
> If not, I would be interested to learn why quilt is not a proper
> alternative.
It has nothing to do with script. It is implementation and usability.

And the problem that debians dpatchs is full of evil patches that makes it
just incompatible to other quilts on non-debian systems.

Imho the whole 3.0 quilt thingy just went wrong, instead of hacking around an
existing system it would have been better to have a specialised set of tools
around dpkg. But I think I said this some time ago.

Alex


--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-REQUEST@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org
Archive: 20111128120044.GC3902@hawking.credativ.lan">http://lists.debian.org/20111128120044.GC3902@hawking.credativ.lan
 
Old 11-28-2011, 11:44 AM
Arno Tll
 
Default Lintian ERROR saying dpatch is obsolete

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

Hi Raphal,

On 28.11.2011 11:55, Raphael Hertzog wrote:
> On Mon, 28 Nov 2011, Alexander Wirt wrote:
>> Since there is no proper alternative (no quilt is not) I will continue to use
>> dpatch for all of my packages.
>
> Is it only the fact that dpatch "patches" can be scripts that justify this
> assertion?

that's exactly the problem I'm facing for a migration of dpatch to quilt
I'm working on. There is no possible solution to execute any code/rules
target before a 3.0 source package applies patches, right?

Given that, I'd need to --skip-patches and use quilt on my own again,
there is no smarter way then which makes the migration to 3.0/quilt not
really an improvement.

On the other hand, if dpkg would support a rules target to be executed
before applying patches, that would be a great improvement. Or,
alternatively most patches-which-are-scripts could be avoided if quilt
had better support for removing/copying/renaming files.

- --
with kind regards,
Arno Tll
IRC: daemonkeeper on Freenode/OFTC
GnuPG Key-ID: 0x9D80F36D
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.11 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/

iQIcBAEBAgAGBQJO04IlAAoJEMcrUe6dgPNta9QQAKxwCA/+FA4uAe+zE5hdJSDF
UKOUnBXdx9mhciYSBoV1fTlEN5sbDXWoGOYOaNck8EMW7ojeD5 T4N86ybNL91Yzm
40dGSspoRVKuXenAjLkmdvUwJSq3ZR3D+psmMPjcH7h/NiAqyGy+fDZ8XTsF6dwO
cHOEUuXGE3Zeq4p8inUEVxSzFMvac6Fr1AHm7+6aBjO53Fp8q9 0MKcNA3QcJRPth
vkp3wQ/9qPUujZzD4pxiz8SZJ4PanlMsaMRKHYg9Fs86xiHcUPMH36q7z v5CVe4H
L3Okcczz51U4wBWGcH0XGPt6zOLuwZp2jho2H+tq6uCtzpIGcM avgze+GYb8rs5p
CfzutFxoIZprAeLtSG5pOkFeU8TTq6yW1ar9yDkHcASy1XShGA 9v0FwhccLjDuk7
comVmL245t1BkDOi4wtz6fjLsQb9CerDiWKDZ6x2ReF1J8Fjhy nw05so3syFZkHt
SOEpXIujP0pJDGibBji2TEXpnj4EzAYoK1yZ871893ryGdsXfZ ZH9fZeS1wseK7Y
lRHLOaJGFs8d9nb77TCAvZQmXmSuyKsmwJic2i1TjfestwS058 tE7CoYN3Uqdg3a
EO1N6h8owUr2v3h0N5TszfuseCgkm3ylTEiKaMPUZoFo8bBOqA EltwLL8a3VdrfJ
DTPK/mv+Wiy3IKH9pEdd
=NYXf
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----


--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-REQUEST@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org
Archive: 4ED38225.1020807@toell.net">http://lists.debian.org/4ED38225.1020807@toell.net
 
Old 11-28-2011, 11:54 AM
Ian Jackson
 
Default Lintian ERROR saying dpatch is obsolete

Arno Tll writes ("Re: Lintian ERROR saying dpatch is obsolete"):
> On the other hand, if dpkg would support a rules target to be executed
> before applying patches, that would be a great improvement. Or,
> alternatively most patches-which-are-scripts could be avoided if quilt
> had better support for removing/copying/renaming files.

It's a fundamental problem with this approach which cannot be solved,
I'm afraid. We want to be able to safely inspect a source package.
That means that unpacking it should not execute part of it.

Ian.


--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-REQUEST@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org
Archive: 20179.33945.377101.746578@chiark.greenend.org.uk"> http://lists.debian.org/20179.33945.377101.746578@chiark.greenend.org.uk
 
Old 11-28-2011, 12:15 PM
Colin Watson
 
Default Lintian ERROR saying dpatch is obsolete

On Mon, Nov 28, 2011 at 01:44:21PM +0100, Arno Tll wrote:
> that's exactly the problem I'm facing for a migration of dpatch to quilt
> I'm working on. There is no possible solution to execute any code/rules
> target before a 3.0 source package applies patches, right?

Good! I want to be able to inspect source packages as they're going to
be built without running any code from them. That's a major advantage
of 3.0 (quilt).

--
Colin Watson [cjwatson@debian.org]


--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-REQUEST@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org
Archive: 20111128131511.GC3470@riva.dynamic.greenend.org.uk ">http://lists.debian.org/20111128131511.GC3470@riva.dynamic.greenend.org.uk
 

Thread Tools




All times are GMT. The time now is 01:25 PM.

VBulletin, Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Content Relevant URLs by vBSEO ©2007, Crawlability, Inc.
Copyright 2007 - 2008, www.linux-archive.org