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 dpkg

 
 
LinkBack Thread Tools
 
Old 11-05-2011, 02:43 PM
Philipp Kern
 
Default Multiarch support in dpkg — really in time for wheezy?

On Tue, Nov 01, 2011 at 11:13:41PM +0100, Philipp Kern wrote:
> On Fri, Oct 21, 2011 at 11:23:27AM +0200, Raphael Hertzog wrote:
> > On Thu, 20 Oct 2011, Philipp Kern wrote:
> > > We would like to see a dpkg with multiarch support in experimental now
> > > and dpkg in sid in about two weeks time. Otherwise we might not be able to
> > > pursue this goal for wheezy.
> > Given this, and if Guillem hasn't responded with a review requiring
> > further work on the branch by sunday, I will upload dpkg 1.16.2 to
> > experimental on sunday (October 23th).
> >
> > But I will do this release from a leaf branch that will not (yet) be
> > merged in master. That way Guillem still has a chance to improve the
> > multiarch branch prior to its merge in master. But this merge must
> > happen in the next 2 weeks so that we can upload dpkg 1.16.3 to sid
> > no later than the 6th of november.
> >
> > I will also ensure that this second upload happens.
>
> so are we on track for the upload of dpkg to sid by the end of the week?

Ping?

Kind regards,
Philipp Kern
--
.'`. Philipp Kern Debian Developer
: :' : http://philkern.de Stable Release Manager
`. `' xmpphil@0x539.de Wanna-Build Admin
`- finger pkern/key@db.debian.org


--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-dpkg-REQUEST@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org
Archive: 20111105154326.GA26450@thrall.0x539.de">http://lists.debian.org/20111105154326.GA26450@thrall.0x539.de
 
Old 11-06-2011, 11:57 AM
Raphael Hertzog
 
Default Multiarch support in dpkg — really in time for wheezy?

Hi,

On Sat, 05 Nov 2011, Philipp Kern wrote:
> > > I will also ensure that this second upload happens.
> >
> > so are we on track for the upload of dpkg to sid by the end of the week?
>
> Ping?

Guillem, can you please share some tentative schedule?


For the release team: while multiarch is not yet fully merged, there has
been some visible progress over the last 2 weeks. About one third of the
commits have been merged on master already (pushes happened on 24/10,
27/10, 30/10, 06/11), and Guillem updated his pu/multiarch/master branch
on git.hadrons.org showing some further work in progress:
http://git.hadrons.org/?p=debian/dpkg.git;a=log;h=refs/heads/pu/multiarch/master

3 commits have been annotated with FIXME (where I'll try to help), and a
bunch of others got supplementary changes too (that I'll review too).

I would thus like to request a supplementary delay. Hopefully Guillem can
say how much time he still needs.

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-dpkg-REQUEST@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org
Archive: 20111106125706.GB30341@rivendell.home.ouaza.com">h ttp://lists.debian.org/20111106125706.GB30341@rivendell.home.ouaza.com
 
Old 11-13-2011, 03:23 PM
Cyril Brulebois
 
Default Multiarch support in dpkg — really in time for wheezy?

Hi Guillem,

Raphael Hertzog <hertzog@debian.org> (06/11/2011):
> On Sat, 05 Nov 2011, Philipp Kern wrote:
> > > > I will also ensure that this second upload happens.
> > >
> > > so are we on track for the upload of dpkg to sid by the end of the week?
> >
> > Ping?
>
> Guillem, can you please share some tentative schedule?

it's been weeks already, can you please tell us what we can expect on
the dpkg side, and when? We have plenty of packages and use cases which
would benefit from multiarch, but those have to be tested and fixed ASAP.

Knowing about the plans on the dpkg side would help everyone get their
priorities straight. Please let us know.

Thanks already!

Mraw,
KiBi.
 
Old 11-15-2011, 04:45 PM
Thijs Kinkhorst
 
Default Multiarch support in dpkg — really in time for wheezy?

Op zondag 06 november 2011 13:57:06 schreef Raphael Hertzog:
> For the release team: while multiarch is not yet fully merged, there has
> been some visible progress over the last 2 weeks. About one third of the
> commits have been merged on master already (pushes happened on 24/10,
> 27/10, 30/10, 06/11), and Guillem updated his pu/multiarch/master branch
> on git.hadrons.org showing some further work in progress:
> http://git.hadrons.org/?p=debian/dpkg.git;a=log;h=refs/heads/pu/multiarch/m
> aster

I see the huge added value in code review by an experienced developer. But why
does that preclude uploading to unstable now? Uploading to sid does not
exclude uploading an improved version later. As I understand it, the current
state is good: a significant part of the code has been reviewed by Guillem,
you believe it is of release quality and at least one derivative is already
using it.

Uploading to sid means that the processes of further polising up the rest of
the changes and actual field testing can start to run in parallel, instead of
the second being stalled by the first.


Thijs
 
Old 11-23-2011, 03:23 PM
Raphael Hertzog
 
Default Multiarch support in dpkg — really in time for wheezy?

Hi,

I'll try to share some news with the release team.

On Sat, 22 Oct 2011, Guillem Jover wrote:
> What I'll do though, when I get back home tomorrow from my current
> trip, is to push already reviewed stuff and keep pushing incrementally,
> instead of my usual big pushes, so that the progress is more visible.

This has been the case so far with regular progress every week. The last
changes have not been pushed on the master branch but on guillem's private
repository.

http://git.hadrons.org/?p=debian/dpkg.git;a=shortlog;h=refs/heads/pu/multiarch/master

The latest changes have been made today. About half of the multiarch
branch has already been merged on master.

> The 1.16.2 will still happen, as planned, quicker than our usual 2
> months between micro releases.

According to this sentence, the last possible date for the 1.16.2 release
is today.

Guillem, given that you're not yet over, can you try to set a new target?

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-dpkg-REQUEST@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org
Archive: 20111123162348.GB28759@rivendell.home.ouaza.com">h ttp://lists.debian.org/20111123162348.GB28759@rivendell.home.ouaza.com
 
Old 03-03-2012, 01:58 AM
Guillem Jover
 
Default Multiarch support in dpkg — really in time for wheezy?

[ Replying to this now, because it appears some people seem to think
mails that go unanswered are considered as accepted facts... ]

On Sat, 2011-10-29 at 13:10:47 +0200, Stefano Zacchiroli wrote:
> [ Disclaimer: my only data points come from people who have been trying
> to get m-a in the archive in the past several months, including the
> Release Team and Raphael. I might hence be biased or misinformed.

I'd think so, yes.

> What worries me is that there is multi-arch work in dpkg, work that has
> its origins in Debian. That work is ready enough to be deployed in
> popular Debian derivatives such as Ubuntu, [...]

I don't particularly care what Ubuntu considers ready or not, but as a
practical example a dpkg with a brokenly designed on-disk db layout was
rushed out into Ubuntu, which I pointed out to them while I was doing
code review, and they had to handle the mess after that. It's also
going to be interesting what they'll need to do to handle the now
fixed interfaces and similar...

> That is bad for Debian morale and should be avoided. Moreover, that
> work is also considered ready enough by other dpkg co-maintainers, by
> the Release Team, and by various porters, which have all asked multiple
> times to have that work in the Debian archive.

Claims by people who during all this time, when this has supposedly been
considered such a priority and so important to the point of bringing
it to a confrontational body like the tech-ctte, have been either
unable or unwilling to review that code and find the problems it had.
I still have to see a single code review on the list...

> Accepting this attitude would be very bad for Debian, because it is at
> stake with the way we usually do things (AKA "do-ocracy"). Accepting
> this attitude would indeed mean acknowledging that people who have
> earned respect in the past as maintainers can stall work done by others
> by simply saying "NACK", without having to contribute alternative
> solutions and/or show progress. We cannot allow that to happen in
> Debian.

You keep mentioning this ralatively new “Debian is a do-ocracy” (which
I think it's been promoted mostly by you?) when it seems to me the
commonly held motto has always been “Debian is a meritocracy”. In any
case, more often than not whenever I've seen that being used, it seems
like an excuse to justify unsound technical decisions, or poor work.
And that's not really the Debian project I joined, which used to pride
itself for its technical excellence...

And if that attitude is not acceptable for Debian, then to me that means
Debian is not the correct place where to have upstream development
happening, because merging unsound unreviewed code is well, not
acceptable.

> [...] (And TBH the thought of you hurrying up
> now in doing such a work is worrisome in its own right.)

So, you mean that doing code review and cleanup is worse than not doing
any at all... ok.

> Please be a team player. If you can make it, that's great, we will all
> benefit from extra eyes on the code, especially if they are experienced
> eyes as yours. But if you cannot make it, please step back and allow for
> uploads to happen. In case you are not willing to do that, I'd be in
> favor of having other dpkg co-maintainers doing the uploads the Release
> Team is asking for. After all, there is nothing that cannot be fixed
> later in subsequent uploads.

If rushing things out and being sloppy or merging technically unsound
code is being a team player, then count me out. Also who do you think
would have had to cleanup that code afterwards anyway, if it had been
merged as it was at the time? (no one else has either been able or
willing to do it up to now...)

guillem


--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-dpkg-REQUEST@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org
Archive: 20120303025842.GA15106@gaara.hadrons.org">http://lists.debian.org/20120303025842.GA15106@gaara.hadrons.org
 
Old 03-03-2012, 07:09 AM
Stefano Zacchiroli
 
Default Multiarch support in dpkg — really in time for wheezy?

On Sat, Mar 03, 2012 at 03:58:42AM +0100, Guillem Jover wrote:
> [ Replying to this now, because it appears some people seem to think
> mails that go unanswered are considered as accepted facts... ]

So be it.

> > work is also considered ready enough by other dpkg co-maintainers, by
> > the Release Team, and by various porters, which have all asked multiple
> > times to have that work in the Debian archive.
>
> Claims by people who during all this time, when this has supposedly been
> considered such a priority and so important to the point of bringing
> it to a confrontational body like the tech-ctte, have been either
> unable or unwilling to review that code and find the problems it had.
> I still have to see a single code review on the list...

The accusation part of this is not for me to be picked up.

But that's not the point. The point is whether you did get to decide
that thorough code review had to be completed before uploading, even
only to experimental. Code review is *a* way to achieve code quality, it
is not the *only* way. User testing is another one.

> You keep mentioning this ralatively new “Debian is a do-ocracy” (which
> I think it's been promoted mostly by you?) when it seems to me the
> commonly held motto has always been “Debian is a meritocracy”. In any
> case, more often than not whenever I've seen that being used, it seems
> like an excuse to justify unsound technical decisions, or poor work.

I've used the term a lot, yes. But I don't think I've invented it in the
first place. Anyhow the difference among the two is crucial here. The
way I see it --- and you're free to disregard of course, we're entirely
in the realm of opinions here --- is that in a meritocracy you get to
"command" on the basis of past, acquired rights. In a do-ocracy you
need to keep on maintaining those rights by showing you're doing
something. Blocking others is not enough to maintain the right to
"command".

> > [...] (And TBH the thought of you hurrying up now in doing such a
> > work is worrisome in its own right.)
>
> So, you mean that doing code review and cleanup is worse than not doing
> any at all... ok.

Uh? Non sequitur. My quoted text above meant that the idea one is doing
code review in a hurry is not as reassuring as the idea of one doing
code review more calmly.

> If rushing things out and being sloppy or merging technically unsound
> code is being a team player, then count me out.

I think Debian has now decided, using the most appropriate means, that
uploading to experimental at this stage wasn't really "rushing things
out". So let's agree to disagree.


On Sat, Mar 03, 2012 at 04:05:44AM +0100, Guillem Jover wrote:
> > I'm convinced that such an attitude actively harms Debian and as such
> > should not be tolerated. That's why I've asked for tech-ctte technical
> > judgement on your decision to postpone the upload in wait of full code
> > review.
>
> If by stalling you mean, having to work on an unpleasant, distressful
> and annoying environment, when supposedly doing it for fun, while still
> managing to motivate myself enough to make progress by doing design,
> implementation, review and cleanup work; not merging code I deem
> technically not acceptable, regardless of the provenance (for which I
> don't think I've ever discriminated on, as can be seen from the amount
> of unmerged branches on my own repo, because they are not ready yet...)
> on a project like dpkg, which has far reaching repercusion compatibility
> wise, where we might have to live with issues forever or where package
> maintainers might need to do useless fixup work due to the consequences
> of those issues, on the whole distribution, then I guess, sure, guilty
> as charged...

I'm sorry Guillem, but you will not convince me with this side argument.
I'm terribly sorry for the stress you went through, I really am and I
wish nobody in Debian goes through something like that due to Debian
every again. But the above is not the point. The point is that you
picked the rules of the game ("code review must be") and actively
blocked others to participate in the game.

You may even pretend, here and now, that you would have welcomed others
to participate in the code review, but that is not the impression that
you gave for the past year. You've frequently worked on a private branch
and referring on -dpkg to changes made in it that have not been pushed
to any public place for a long time. This seems to have happened also
for the last "code review" after the experimental upload. How could you
possibly expect that attitude to encourage other to participate in code
review?

Cheers.
--
Stefano Zacchiroli zack@{upsilon.cc,pps.jussieu.fr,debian.org} . o .
Maître de conférences ...... http://upsilon.cc/zack ...... . . o
Debian Project Leader ....... @zack on identi.ca ....... o o o
« the first rule of tautology club is the first rule of tautology club »
 
Old 03-03-2012, 01:14 PM
Raphael Hertzog
 
Default Multiarch support in dpkg — really in time for wheezy?

On Sat, 03 Mar 2012, Guillem Jover wrote:
> [ Replying to this now, because it appears some people seem to think
> mails that go unanswered are considered as accepted facts... ]

Answering mails (when the other side is expecting an answer) is important
when you want to assume the leadership on dpkg maintenance. It has been
one of the major problems between us, and between you and the release
team.

> > Please be a team player. If you can make it, that's great, we will all
> > benefit from extra eyes on the code, especially if they are experienced
> > eyes as yours. But if you cannot make it, please step back and allow for
> > uploads to happen. In case you are not willing to do that, I'd be in
> > favor of having other dpkg co-maintainers doing the uploads the Release
> > Team is asking for. After all, there is nothing that cannot be fixed
> > later in subsequent uploads.
>
> If rushing things out and being sloppy or merging technically unsound
> code is being a team player, then count me out. Also who do you think
> would have had to cleanup that code afterwards anyway, if it had been
> merged as it was at the time? (no one else has either been able or
> willing to do it up to now...)

1/ Nobody rushed anything. The code has been available since march last
year.

2/ I have offered multiple times to fixup any problem that your code
review would have unveiled. So it's not true to claim that all the
responsibilities land on you. The real problem is that you have taken
multiarch under your umbrella as your own pet project, completely
ignoring me and my offers of help.

You have claimed numerous times that the branch was "unsound, buggy"
(implying that I'm crappy coder, etc.) and I would not take offense on
this if you were at the same time pointing out concreate real problems and
if we could have a sane discussion on how to fix them.

But we had nothing like this... don't be surprised then if everybody
is watching you. You have created yourself the conditions that lead
to this pression on your shoulders. Working in the open and giving
clear directives so that other can step in relieves that pression.

Cheers,
--
Raphaël Hertzog ◈ Debian Developer

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


--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-dpkg-REQUEST@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org
Archive: 20120303141416.GA12358@rivendell.home.ouaza.com">h ttp://lists.debian.org/20120303141416.GA12358@rivendell.home.ouaza.com
 
Old 03-03-2012, 09:25 PM
Guillem Jover
 
Default Multiarch support in dpkg — really in time for wheezy?

On Sat, 2012-03-03 at 15:14:16 +0100, Raphael Hertzog wrote:
> On Sat, 03 Mar 2012, Guillem Jover wrote:
> > [ Replying to this now, because it appears some people seem to think
> > mails that go unanswered are considered as accepted facts... ]
>
> Answering mails (when the other side is expecting an answer) is important
> when you want to assume the leadership on dpkg maintenance. It has been
> one of the major problems between us, and between you and the release
> team.

I've already said elsewhere why I didn't reply to the RT mail, and while
obviously I'm not them, I'd venture to say their (IMO unjustified) angry
reaction has been (partially) due to your campaign of fear mongering...

I did not find your previous preventive involvement and the later on
“escalation” to the DPL (as if the supposed weight of that role would
be useful somehow) to be appropriate, and I didn't find replying to a
mail supposedly aimed at “mediation”, when I had already been condemned,
worth the energy. Usually if I've nothing good to say, I'd rather not
say anything.

But then you both keep mischaracterizing the situation, at least the
“leader” has the partial excuse of being misinformed, OTOH you've been
directly involved and we have had personal discussions about all this,
so after this mail I'm not sure I can be bothered to repeat myself to
discuss this matter again any further, more so when your stance seems
to me to change between public and private communications.

> > If rushing things out and being sloppy or merging technically unsound
> > code is being a team player, then count me out. Also who do you think
> > would have had to cleanup that code afterwards anyway, if it had been
> > merged as it was at the time? (no one else has either been able or
> > willing to do it up to now...)
>
> 1/ Nobody rushed anything. The code has been available since march last
> year.

Obviously not for lack of trying. That paragraph was replying to what the
“leader” thinks should have happened. If it had been for you, the code
would had been merged long time ago, as it was, with all its problems...

> 2/ I have offered multiple times to fixup any problem that your code
> review would have unveiled. So it's not true to claim that all the
> responsibilities land on you. The real problem is that you have taken
> multiarch under your umbrella as your own pet project, completely
> ignoring me and my offers of help.

So one gets pressured, pestered, annoyed and as a consequence drained of
all fun and motivation, while somehow managing to keep going with a civil
tone, and is expected to still have to deal closely with the offender...

It's also interesteing how the reality about the “real problem” changed
with time...

> You have claimed numerous times that the branch was "unsound, buggy"
> (implying that I'm crappy coder, etc.) and I would not take offense on
> this if you were at the same time pointing out concreate real problems and
> if we could have a sane discussion on how to fix them.

I guess we have either not been looking at the same mailing list or
code base then, it's been a *fact*.

> But we had nothing like this... don't be surprised then if everybody
> is watching you. You have created yourself the conditions that lead
> to this pression on your shoulders. Working in the open and giving
> clear directives so that other can step in relieves that pression.

Oh, because that pressure, present already more than one year ago, did
not start instead from say, contractual obligations...

guillem


--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-dpkg-REQUEST@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org
Archive: 20120303222509.GA592@gaara.hadrons.org">http://lists.debian.org/20120303222509.GA592@gaara.hadrons.org
 
Old 03-04-2012, 01:43 PM
Raphael Hertzog
 
Default Multiarch support in dpkg — really in time for wheezy?

Hi,

On Sat, 03 Mar 2012, Guillem Jover wrote:
> I've already said elsewhere why I didn't reply to the RT mail, and while
> obviously I'm not them, I'd venture to say their (IMO unjustified) angry
> reaction has been (partially) due to your campaign of fear mongering...

There has been no such campaign. The only thing I did was to respond to
queries and give out the few information I had on the progress
of your "review".

Obviously I was not happy with the time it was taking, and I didn't
hide this. But you, as a person, were never a target and you shouldn't
act like a victim.

I'm sorry that you felt that way, it was certainly not my intention
to ruin your motivation. The situation has been quite uneasy for me as
well, and despite what you might believe, I have not asked people to rally
against you.

I only tried to find a solution to get multiarch into Debian since
you have been taking so long and since you were voluntarily not letting me
help you. That's why I queried the tech-ctte earlier and that's also
why I asked the leader if he would be ready to mediate between us
in order to get clear rules on who can commit what.

> discuss this matter again any further, more so when your stance seems
> to me to change between public and private communications.

I'm not sure what you're referring to. Feel free to elaborate if you think
it can help. I don't have much to hide, I believe I have been honest in
what I said.

> > 1/ Nobody rushed anything. The code has been available since march last
> > year.
>
> Obviously not for lack of trying. That paragraph was replying to what the
> “leader” thinks should have happened. If it had been for you, the code
> would had been merged long time ago, as it was, with all its problems...

Yes, if I were alone, it would have been merged much earlier. But at this
point in time, we'd have had 2 or 3 intermediary dpkg releases and the most
important issues would have been fixed. And the remaining design
differences would have not changed much IMO. We can just agree to disagree
on this.

But you should also note that I did not forcefully merge it, and this
despite several persons encouraging me to go ahead. Instead I did try
to work with you... but apparently trying to help you just ended up
increasing your blood pressure level. :-(

> > 2/ I have offered multiple times to fixup any problem that your code
> > review would have unveiled. So it's not true to claim that all the
> > responsibilities land on you. The real problem is that you have taken
> > multiarch under your umbrella as your own pet project, completely
> > ignoring me and my offers of help.
>
> So one gets pressured, pestered, annoyed and as a consequence drained of
> all fun and motivation, while somehow managing to keep going with a civil
> tone, and is expected to still have to deal closely with the offender...

At least you recognise that you avoided interactions with me. Thank you.

> It's also interesteing how the reality about the “real problem” changed
> with time...

Indeed "the real problem" is probably inappropriate since we have multiple
problems...

[ snip the ad-hominem attack ]

> > But we had nothing like this... don't be surprised then if everybody
> > is watching you. You have created yourself the conditions that lead
> > to this pression on your shoulders. Working in the open and giving
> > clear directives so that other can step in relieves that pression.
>
> Oh, because that pressure, present already more than one year ago, did
> not start instead from say, contractual obligations...

That pressure was (supposed to be) on my shoulders. Yes I deliberately
kept you in the loop (and asked you to review the code as I produced it)
because (1) you expressed earlier some fears that I "stealed" you
multiarch (2) it was the right thing to do since you are the team leader
and your comments are always very valuable.

I have certainly responsibilities in how the situation evolved, but I
have always been willing to make efforts to improve the situation because
I believe that Debian is best served by having both of us maintaining dpkg
instead of only one of us. With your latest (very harsh) comments, I fear
that you got to the point where only one of us can stay... I hope that was
not the intent.

On my side, I am not rancorous and I have no problem continuing to work
with you if you can cope with me.

Cheers,
--
Raphaël Hertzog ◈ Debian Developer

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


--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-dpkg-REQUEST@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org
Archive: 20120304144356.GA4844@rivendell.home.ouaza.com">ht tp://lists.debian.org/20120304144356.GA4844@rivendell.home.ouaza.com
 

Thread Tools




All times are GMT. The time now is 06:18 AM.

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