On Wed, 2011-08-31 at 14:13 +0100, Colin Watson wrote: > On Wed, Aug 31, 2011 at 01:39:20PM +0100, Ben Hutchings wrote: > > Since Linux 3.x is a continuation of the 2.6.x series and not a major > > change, there was no need to create a new source package for it. > > However, we should now rename the source package to 'linux'. > > > > Currently, most of our bugs are assigned to 'linux-2.6' or > > 'src:linux-2.6' so that version-tracking works across binary package > > name changes. But if we rename the source package as well, these bugs > > will presumably be seen to apply only to versions before the name > > change, or only after. How can we avoid this? > > The good news is that I don't think this should require fundamental > redesign work in order to work gracefully. The bad news is that I think > it is going to require some work. > > The format used for version records should permit a source package to > change its name, as long as you preserve the old information in the > changelog.
Of course we will do that. > For instance, the version file for linux-2.6 currently starts: > > linux-2.6/3.0.0-3 linux-2.6/3.0.0-2 linux-2.6/3.0.0-1 > > ... so it could become: > > linux/3.0.0-4 linux-2.6/3.0.0-3 linux-2.6/3.0.0-2 linux-2.6/3.0.0-1 > > So, I think what you need is for the bugs to be reassigned to linux or > src:linux, but also keep the old version tracking information which > indicates that the bug was found in (say) linux-2.6/3.0.0-1. I already have a script to do reassignment to src:linux-2.6, and I should be able to automate this fairly easily. > debbugs > will know that linux/3.0.0-4 is descended from linux-2.6/3.0.0-1 and so > things should keep on working. A normal reassign would discard the > version tracking information and you'd have to reapply it afterwards, > which would be tedious and error-prone. Perhaps we need to implement a > form of reassign that doesn't discard version tracking information, or > perhaps we should simply do this by hacking the database in bulk. > > We might need some work to make pkgreport.cgi?src=linux&dist=stable work > gracefully. What I think ought to happen is that it should take the > version record for linux and realise that it is descended from a source > package called linux-2.6 that's still in stable, and look up the > appropriate version for that; but I don't recall implementing anything > that clever and I suspect that this does not yet work. > > We'll also need to consider what happens for users of stable who'll > continue to report bugs and expect reportbug to be able to show them > listings and so forth. We can change that in a stable update, and reassign the bugs that continue to use 'linux-2.6', same as we do for bugs submitted without using reportbug. > Given the number of bugs involved, perhaps we > need to teach debbugs that "linux-2.6" should be considered as an alias > for "linux" for the purposes of queries and of input to submit@ and > control@. > > Ben, do you have any constraints on the timeline for this that we should > know about? No rush. > Don, what do you think about all this? I think it's tractable, but it > feels like a pretty solid weekend's work to me. Thanks, Ben.
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
