Your message dated Mon, 6 Feb 2006 21:59:15 +1030 with message-id <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> and subject line Bug#351626: wxwidgets2.6 should not be native has caused the attached Bug report to be marked as done.
This means that you claim that the problem has been dealt with. If this is not the case it is now your responsibility to reopen the Bug report if necessary, and/or fix the problem forthwith. (NB: If you are a system administrator and have no idea what I am talking about this indicates a serious mail system misconfiguration somewhere. Please contact me immediately.) Debian bug tracking system administrator (administrator, Debian Bugs database)
--- Begin Message --->From [EMAIL PROTECTED] Mon Feb 06 01:31:39 2006 Received: (at submit) by bugs.debian.org; 6 Feb 2006 09:31:39 +0000 Return-path: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Received: from uni-sb.de ([134.96.252.33]) by spohr.debian.org with esmtp (Exim 4.50) id 1F62ih-0001MY-2E for [EMAIL PROTECTED]; Mon, 06 Feb 2006 01:31:39 -0800 Received: from mail.cs.uni-sb.de (mail.cs.uni-sb.de [134.96.254.200]) by uni-sb.de (8.13.5/2006012700) with ESMTP id k169VamV012489 for <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; Mon, 6 Feb 2006 10:31:36 +0100 (CET) Received: from intertalk.cs.uni-sb.de (intertalk.cs.uni-sb.de [134.96.241.4]) by mail.cs.uni-sb.de (8.13.5/2006012700) with ESMTP id k169Va4r023295 for <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; Mon, 6 Feb 2006 10:31:36 +0100 (CET) Received: from intertalk.cs.uni-sb.de (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by intertalk.cs.uni-sb.de (Postfix) with SMTP id 1FCE64A78B for <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; Mon, 6 Feb 2006 10:31:35 +0100 (CET) Received: by intertalk.cs.uni-sb.de (sSMTP sendmail emulation); Mon, 6 Feb 2006 10:31:34 +0100 From: "Christoph Berg" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Date: Mon, 6 Feb 2006 10:31:34 +0100 To: Debian Bug Tracking System <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Subject: wxwidgets2.6 should not be native Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Mail-Followup-To: Christoph Berg <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Debian Bug Tracking System <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Disposition: inline X-Reportbug-Version: 3.18 X-Face: ([EMAIL PROTECTED](D\O)J!Qu\q4fh8W^7WGqxpwTk&Xy0*ya<[EMAIL PROTECTED]/TA:l\Pde>wYj,M;75" N13_k}S.rS#lmX[G]QOuw[H"4#z$tSn$SkV<IurN'6;gkRFZw@/XLtl7":0v&kN3*-iM~q*;.*CfH@ qM>5ucV193Tz3IWj<]8at(6"K.ht//s"Ds,xMV9A\_bN/)[EMAIL PROTECTED]>-dF34Kw?,<G0ya X-Debbugs-No-Ack: please User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.11+cvs20060126 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-MIME-Autoconverted: from 8bit to quoted-printable by uni-sb.de id k169VamV012489 Delivered-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 2.60-bugs.debian.org_2005_01_02 (1.212-2003-09-23-exp) on spohr.debian.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, hits=-10.0 required=4.0 tests=BAYES_01,HAS_PACKAGE, X_DEBBUGS_NO_ACK autolearn=ham version=2.60-bugs.debian.org_2005_01_02 Package: wxwidgets2.6 Severity: important Version: 2.6.1.2 Hi, when backporting wxwidgets2.6 for sarge (as needed by amule), I noticed that the package is native. Policy doesn't specifically disallow that style, but imho it shouldn't be used for any non-trivial package. Additionally, this makes NMUs/backports require a new tarball, and leeds to ugly version numbers like "2.6.1.1bpo1".=20 Please repackage wxwidgets2.6 (and wxwindows2.4) using a .diff.gz. Christoph --=20 [EMAIL PROTECTED] | http://www.df7cb.de/cs/ Universit=E4t des Saarlandes, Compiler Design Lab
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message --->From [EMAIL PROTECTED] Mon Feb 06 03:30:15 2006 Received: (at 351626-done) by bugs.debian.org; 6 Feb 2006 11:30:15 +0000 Return-path: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Received: from ppp202-32.lns1.adl4.internode.on.net ([203.122.202.32] helo=hank.shelbyville.oz) by spohr.debian.org with esmtp (Exim 4.50) id 1F64ZK-0003ht-4R for [EMAIL PROTECTED]; Mon, 06 Feb 2006 03:30:06 -0800 Received: from ron by hank.shelbyville.oz with local (Exim 4.60) (envelope-from <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>) id 1F64YW-0007pq-0g; Mon, 06 Feb 2006 21:59:16 +1030 Date: Mon, 6 Feb 2006 21:59:15 +1030 To: Christoph Berg <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: Bug#351626: wxwidgets2.6 should not be native Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> References: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.11+cvs20060126 From: Ron <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 2.60-bugs.debian.org_2005_01_02 (1.212-2003-09-23-exp) on spohr.debian.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, hits=-2.0 required=4.0 tests=HAS_BUG_NUMBER,RCVD_IN_SORBS autolearn=no version=2.60-bugs.debian.org_2005_01_02 On Mon, Feb 06, 2006 at 10:31:34AM +0100, Christoph Berg wrote: > when backporting wxwidgets2.6 for sarge (as needed by amule), I > noticed that the package is native. This is not accidental and has been explained and debated many times. Answer: there is no diff.gz. Or bug. > Policy doesn't specifically disallow that style, Precisely. Our predecessors were wise. Though opinions like this have tried repeatedly to encroach on that. Without ever caring to address the real issue: There is no diff.gz. If you do something that means it should have one, then you should package your changes appropriately. As I do. Wilful misinterpretation of policy to take a more narrow view than it actually proffers does not make an "important" bug out of a non-existent one. > but imho it shouldn't be used for any non-trivial package. That is a completely spurious and intractable line of reasoning. Here's a simpler one: Packages with a diff.gz should have a corresponding Debian version for each published diff. Note how it doesn't require arbitrary policy or humble opinions. Just a simple technical test. All this talk of "native" is emotive and does not represent any real problem we have to solve. What is important is people know what source they are getting. In this case, pristine upstream, straight from cvs. I can't think of a more trivial package than unchanged pristine upstream source, can you? Or do you have a different definition of 'non-trivial'? Everything is non-trivial if you do it wrong. > Additionally, this makes NMUs/backports require a new > tarball, and leeds to ugly version numbers like "2.6.1.1bpo1". If you change something that is not a part of the upstream release then of course you will need to make an orig.gz and add a diff.gz for your changes. _You_ should NEVER use version numbers like the above at all -- they are the domain of upstream (for these purposes read 'me' with a different hat on) to use when making releases. If you mess about like that, you may need to repackage an official release with an epoch for your users to see it as an 'upgrade'. And that would be your problem. Don't file a bug asking me to add one... If you do an _NMU_ like that without consulting me, _I_ will be your, very vocal, problem... :-) Don't do that ok. If this package looks non-trivial to you, talk to me before uploading anything that I am ultimately responsible for. If you make local changes, you should add a diff.gz like the developers reference tells you to. Don't misinterpret what I have done as justification for doing something wrong yourself elsewhere. If _you_ don't provide a diff.gz, then how else am _I_ supposed to know what you have done, to see if I want to integrate it upstream (though of course in the good 'ol days, you'd have actually been in contact with upstream and would be passing such things on... I wouldn't have to come look for it at all...). If you'd ever talked to me before (see the relevant chapters on collaborating with your upstream), you wouldn't be wasting my time with this pointless re-run either. See the benefits? I don't mean to sound (too) snappy, but you are not the first... I'm still hoping to live to see the last. > Please repackage wxwidgets2.6 (and wxwindows2.4) using a .diff.gz. What exactly would you have me fake up to put in it? You should definitely do this if you ever have something that should go in one, but I do not. All my changes go 'upstream' first, then Debian distributes a new upstream release. Policy may be distorted to created a more bigoted definition of what is "native", but this package will not ship from me with an empty diff.gz before the tech-ctte completely loses its grip on reality. If you see a problem here, fix the terminology, and in particular stop using a heavily overloaded and deliberately vague notion of "native", to address the technical problem of a package that we have made no changes to at all. wx was not written for Debian. Nobody in their right mind who knew what it was would think that. But that is irrelevant here. There is no diff.gz. That is all that matters, Spread the word. thanks! Ron
--- End Message ---
