Bug#1035310: bullseye-pu: package xz-utils/5.2.11-0~deb11u1
Hello Jonathan, sorry for my late answer, I was on holidays. On Tue, Jun 27, 2023 at 10:17:30PM +0200, Sebastian Andrzej Siewior wrote: > On 2023-06-26 18:10:57 [+0100], Jonathan Wiltshire wrote: > > Control: tag -1 moreinfo > > > > You're both going to have to help me a) understand what is the user-facing > > problem you're solving which is necessary to fix in stable and b) whether > > you're both agreed on how to fix it. > > a) The bpo of manpages-de and manpages-fr contains a manpage for xz. The >regular (non-bpo) package does not contain such the man-page nor does >the package in the following stable contain this man-page. >The user facing problem is the installation of both >manpages-de|manpages-fr and xz-utils/5.2.11-0~deb11u1 because both >provide the same man-page/file and dpkg doesn't like that. That is basically the issue, except that there are several man pages (IIRC, I can check tonight). > b) I *think* we agreed on removing the man-pages from bpo of >manpages-[de|fr] in the next upload if the upload of >xz-utils/5.2.11-0~deb11u1 is confirmed. Otherwise it makes no sense >to anything, the upgrade path bpo -> next-stable is working due to >proper package relations. As always, when such a transfer occurs, I can provide an upload without the affected man pages and with the proper package releations. Now sínce bookworm is released I do not intend to provide any further upload to oldstable and I do not see any reason to processes this issue any further, affected users can upgrade to stable now to get the latest localized man pages from xz-utils proper. If there are technical issues for performing this upload to oldstable and hence actions form my side (to enable smooth upgrading) are needed please let me know. Greetings Helge -- Dr. Helge Kreutzmann deb...@helgefjell.de Dipl.-Phys. http://www.helgefjell.de/debian.php 64bit GNU powered gpg signed mail preferred Help keep free software "libre": http://www.ffii.de/ signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Bug#1035310: bullseye-pu: package xz-utils/5.2.11-0~deb11u1
On 2023-06-26 18:10:57 [+0100], Jonathan Wiltshire wrote: > Control: tag -1 moreinfo > > You're both going to have to help me a) understand what is the user-facing > problem you're solving which is necessary to fix in stable and b) whether > you're both agreed on how to fix it. a) The bpo of manpages-de and manpages-fr contains a manpage for xz. The regular (non-bpo) package does not contain such the man-page nor does the package in the following stable contain this man-page. The user facing problem is the installation of both manpages-de|manpages-fr and xz-utils/5.2.11-0~deb11u1 because both provide the same man-page/file and dpkg doesn't like that. b) I *think* we agreed on removing the man-pages from bpo of manpages-[de|fr] in the next upload if the upload of xz-utils/5.2.11-0~deb11u1 is confirmed. Otherwise it makes no sense to anything, the upgrade path bpo -> next-stable is working due to proper package relations. > Thanks, Sebastian
Bug#1035310: bullseye-pu: package xz-utils/5.2.11-0~deb11u1
Control: tag -1 moreinfo
On Mon, May 01, 2023 at 01:23:43PM +0200, Helge Kreutzmann wrote:
> Hello Sebastian,
> On Sun, Apr 30, 2023 at 10:17:07PM +0200, Sebastian Andrzej Siewior wrote:
> > On 2023-04-30 18:43:18 [+0200], Helge Kreutzmann wrote:
> > > > - the backport package of manpages-de and manpages-fr provides a
> > > > man page for xz. These files conflict with the one provided by
> > > > xz-utils package. The bpo package and xz-utils in Bookworm have proper
> > > > Breaks: and Replaces: relation to allow smooth upgrades.
> > > > This update of xz does not provide such a relation since the current
> > > > version of manpages-{de|fr} in Bullseye does not provide this
> > > > man page. As per testing, the Breaks: in manpages-{de|fr} forbids
> > > > installing of this xz-utils. My understanding is that once these
> > > > man pages are visible in Bullseye via xz-utils, the bpo packages of
> > > > manpages-l10n stops creating them as part of the build process. They
> > > > are not present in testing/ Bookworm version of the package.
> > >
> > > No, we need to coordinate about this. You previously considered doing
> > > a backport and I asked you several if this is still the case; since
> > > you did not respond, I did not remove the conflicting pages in my
> > > bullseye packport.
> >
> > I added you to Cc: for reason of coordination. I always intended to do
> > -pu instead of a bpo. I intended to respond earlier but didn't manage to
> > do it until now. Sorry for that.
>
> Thanks for adding me and we are all overloaded some times.
>
> > > As bookworm is about to release, I just wonder if that is really
> > > necessary to introduce the translation files in your backport. I'm all
> > > about translations, but this is a bit fragile with two backports with
> > > all the upgrade paths. So hopefully we get this right.
> >
> > Stable Bullseye, no bpo.
>
> I don't know if this ease the situation regarding the required package
> relationship.
>
> From my side this is just a few lines in my rules file and the
> appropriate package relationships, the latter are the tricky part to
> get right.
>
> > > If you still feel this is necessary for your users, then please
> > > contact me and I can perform another upload with the file removed and
> > > appropriate package relationships. (This implies you tell me the
> > > version which introduces the files.)
> >
> > I'm waiting for the stable team to confirm or deny my request. Once that
> > is clear we can see how to move forward.
>
> Ok.
>
> > > Please tell me as well which translated man pages you ship, as there
> > > are also Danish and Ukrainian ones in my backports.
> > >
> > > Please not that I will not perform uploads to bullseye once bookworm
> > > has been released.
> >
> > Only DE and FR made it into the 5.2 series.
>
> So we need to deal with those two "only".
>
> Thus I'm waiting for further information from your side.
You're both going to have to help me a) understand what is the user-facing
problem you're solving which is necessary to fix in stable and b) whether
you're both agreed on how to fix it.
Thanks,
--
Jonathan Wiltshire j...@debian.org
Debian Developer http://people.debian.org/~jmw
4096R: 0xD3524C51 / 0A55 B7C5 1223 3942 86EC 74C3 5394 479D D352 4C51
ed25519/0x196418AAEB74C8A1: CA619D65A72A7BADFC96D280196418AAEB74C8A1
Bug#1035310: bullseye-pu: package xz-utils/5.2.11-0~deb11u1
Hello Sebastian,
On Sun, Apr 30, 2023 at 10:17:07PM +0200, Sebastian Andrzej Siewior wrote:
> On 2023-04-30 18:43:18 [+0200], Helge Kreutzmann wrote:
> > > - the backport package of manpages-de and manpages-fr provides a
> > > man page for xz. These files conflict with the one provided by
> > > xz-utils package. The bpo package and xz-utils in Bookworm have proper
> > > Breaks: and Replaces: relation to allow smooth upgrades.
> > > This update of xz does not provide such a relation since the current
> > > version of manpages-{de|fr} in Bullseye does not provide this
> > > man page. As per testing, the Breaks: in manpages-{de|fr} forbids
> > > installing of this xz-utils. My understanding is that once these
> > > man pages are visible in Bullseye via xz-utils, the bpo packages of
> > > manpages-l10n stops creating them as part of the build process. They
> > > are not present in testing/ Bookworm version of the package.
> >
> > No, we need to coordinate about this. You previously considered doing
> > a backport and I asked you several if this is still the case; since
> > you did not respond, I did not remove the conflicting pages in my
> > bullseye packport.
>
> I added you to Cc: for reason of coordination. I always intended to do
> -pu instead of a bpo. I intended to respond earlier but didn't manage to
> do it until now. Sorry for that.
Thanks for adding me and we are all overloaded some times.
> > As bookworm is about to release, I just wonder if that is really
> > necessary to introduce the translation files in your backport. I'm all
> > about translations, but this is a bit fragile with two backports with
> > all the upgrade paths. So hopefully we get this right.
>
> Stable Bullseye, no bpo.
I don't know if this ease the situation regarding the required package
relationship.
From my side this is just a few lines in my rules file and the
appropriate package relationships, the latter are the tricky part to
get right.
> > If you still feel this is necessary for your users, then please
> > contact me and I can perform another upload with the file removed and
> > appropriate package relationships. (This implies you tell me the
> > version which introduces the files.)
>
> I'm waiting for the stable team to confirm or deny my request. Once that
> is clear we can see how to move forward.
Ok.
> > Please tell me as well which translated man pages you ship, as there
> > are also Danish and Ukrainian ones in my backports.
> >
> > Please not that I will not perform uploads to bullseye once bookworm
> > has been released.
>
> Only DE and FR made it into the 5.2 series.
So we need to deal with those two "only".
Thus I'm waiting for further information from your side.
Greetings
Helge
--
Dr. Helge Kreutzmann deb...@helgefjell.de
Dipl.-Phys. http://www.helgefjell.de/debian.php
64bit GNU powered gpg signed mail preferred
Help keep free software "libre": http://www.ffii.de/
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
Bug#1035310: bullseye-pu: package xz-utils/5.2.11-0~deb11u1
On 2023-04-30 18:43:18 [+0200], Helge Kreutzmann wrote:
> Hello Sebastian,
Hi Helge,
> > - the backport package of manpages-de and manpages-fr provides a
> > man page for xz. These files conflict with the one provided by
> > xz-utils package. The bpo package and xz-utils in Bookworm have proper
> > Breaks: and Replaces: relation to allow smooth upgrades.
> > This update of xz does not provide such a relation since the current
> > version of manpages-{de|fr} in Bullseye does not provide this
> > man page. As per testing, the Breaks: in manpages-{de|fr} forbids
> > installing of this xz-utils. My understanding is that once these
> > man pages are visible in Bullseye via xz-utils, the bpo packages of
> > manpages-l10n stops creating them as part of the build process. They
> > are not present in testing/ Bookworm version of the package.
>
> No, we need to coordinate about this. You previously considered doing
> a backport and I asked you several if this is still the case; since
> you did not respond, I did not remove the conflicting pages in my
> bullseye packport.
I added you to Cc: for reason of coordination. I always intended to do
-pu instead of a bpo. I intended to respond earlier but didn't manage to
do it until now. Sorry for that.
> As bookworm is about to release, I just wonder if that is really
> necessary to introduce the translation files in your backport. I'm all
> about translations, but this is a bit fragile with two backports with
> all the upgrade paths. So hopefully we get this right.
Stable Bullseye, no bpo.
> If you still feel this is necessary for your users, then please
> contact me and I can perform another upload with the file removed and
> appropriate package relationships. (This implies you tell me the
> version which introduces the files.)
I'm waiting for the stable team to confirm or deny my request. Once that
is clear we can see how to move forward.
> Please tell me as well which translated man pages you ship, as there
> are also Danish and Ukrainian ones in my backports.
>
> Please not that I will not perform uploads to bullseye once bookworm
> has been released.
Only DE and FR made it into the 5.2 series.
> Greetings
>
>Helge
Sebastian
Bug#1035310: bullseye-pu: package xz-utils/5.2.11-0~deb11u1
Hello Sebastian,
On Sun, Apr 30, 2023 at 06:23:20PM +0200, Sebastian Andrzej Siewior wrote:
> Package: release.debian.org
> Control: affects -1 + src:xz-utils
> User: release.debian@packages.debian.org
> Usertags: pu
> Tags: bullseye
> Severity: normal
>
> This is a stable update of the xz-utils package as provide project's
> upstream (fixes only, no new features).
> A user visible change is that more localized man-pages (de, fr) and
> translations (es, pt, ro, …) for xz are available. The german man pages
> were provided by the manpages-de package (manpages-l10n source package)
> but were dropped shortly before the Bullseye release.
Correct, we discussed this in the past when we reviewed the
appropriate package relationships.
> xz-utils v5.2.7 to v5.2.9 was uploaded to unstable. Lessons learned:
> - the backport package of manpages-de and manpages-fr provides a
> man page for xz. These files conflict with the one provided by
> xz-utils package. The bpo package and xz-utils in Bookworm have proper
> Breaks: and Replaces: relation to allow smooth upgrades.
> This update of xz does not provide such a relation since the current
> version of manpages-{de|fr} in Bullseye does not provide this
> man page. As per testing, the Breaks: in manpages-{de|fr} forbids
> installing of this xz-utils. My understanding is that once these
> man pages are visible in Bullseye via xz-utils, the bpo packages of
> manpages-l10n stops creating them as part of the build process. They
> are not present in testing/ Bookworm version of the package.
No, we need to coordinate about this. You previously considered doing
a backport and I asked you several if this is still the case; since
you did not respond, I did not remove the conflicting pages in my
bullseye packport.
As bookworm is about to release, I just wonder if that is really
necessary to introduce the translation files in your backport. I'm all
about translations, but this is a bit fragile with two backports with
all the upgrade paths. So hopefully we get this right.
If you still feel this is necessary for your users, then please
contact me and I can perform another upload with the file removed and
appropriate package relationships. (This implies you tell me the
version which introduces the files.)
Please tell me as well which translated man pages you ship, as there
are also Danish and Ukrainian ones in my backports.
Please not that I will not perform uploads to bullseye once bookworm
has been released.
Greetings
Helge
--
Dr. Helge Kreutzmann deb...@helgefjell.de
Dipl.-Phys. http://www.helgefjell.de/debian.php
64bit GNU powered gpg signed mail preferred
Help keep free software "libre": http://www.ffii.de/
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
