Re: bo-updates packages
On Sat, Dec 06, 1997 at 04:36:40PM +0200, Fabrizio Polacco wrote: Most maintainers have a double boot machine (like me), or have a bo machine on their net, and launching recompilation of latest packages (after a small change in the changelog file) is a little waste of time (and gives more benefits). I remember of one developer who couldn't upgrade his only machine to hamm; he could only help doing non-maintainer uploads of new packages. Pay attention: nobody here is proposing to create a debian-1.4 libc5 based release! That would be a waste of energies. Only new packages and security fixes should be libc5-recompiled, not everything. You've won me over. I've backported a couple of my packages, but only one (guavac) is not new for hamm, or even vaguely well known. However I think that fixing bugs in hamm should probably take priority, but I don't have outstanding here. hamish -- Hamish Moffatt, [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED] Latest Debian packages at ftp://ftp.rising.com.au/pub/hamish. PGP#EFA6B9D5 CCs of replies from mailing lists are welcome. http://hamish.home.ml.org -- TO UNSUBSCRIBE FROM THIS MAILING LIST: e-mail the word unsubscribe to [EMAIL PROTECTED] . Trouble? e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] .
Re: bo-updates packages
Hamish Moffatt wrote: You've won me over. I've backported a couple of my packages, but only one (guavac) is not new for hamm, or even vaguely well known. However I think that fixing bugs in hamm should probably take priority, but I don't have outstanding here. Right. It's only a recompilation. If one package doesn't work we don't recompile it. It's only a kind offer to our bo users instead of harshly say get the source from hamm and recompile yourself!. No more. Therefore should be done only for new or improved packages (both from upstream than bugs fixing). Fabrizio -- | [EMAIL PROTECTED][EMAIL PROTECTED][EMAIL PROTECTED] | Pluto Leader - Debian Developer Happy Debian 1.3.1 User - vi-holic | 6F7267F5 fingerprint 57 16 C4 ED C9 86 40 7B 1A 69 A1 66 EC FB D2 5E -- TO UNSUBSCRIBE FROM THIS MAILING LIST: e-mail the word unsubscribe to [EMAIL PROTECTED] . Trouble? e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] .
Re: bo-updates packages
Hamish Moffatt wrote: So, I think if somebody really wants to run some newer software (which isn't necessarily stable in our terms), then the choices are: 1. compile it from sources -- ugly, but workable. Even to the extent of making your own packages, which I gather youve done. 2. upgrade to the unstable package, and in the case of hamm, install enough of hamm to run it. This isn't actually that much; new ldso, libc6, new libc5 I think, and some libraries. With such a system, you can run libc6 binaries but compilation is done for libc5, etc. I have such a system and it works fine. (3. try to backport the package yourself.) The right answer is 3. Answer 2. is the wrong one. Remember that we are now speaking of people who _cannot_ upgrade their systems to hamm, because they are production machines, and/or their sites have a policy to not install unstable software unless it's absolutely necesssary. Often these people are urged to get latest version of some important software, for direct request or because of embedded dependency. The problem with answer 3. is that it embeds answer 1., plus the load to debianization. Therefore people goes for 1. and then complains because they lose the advantage of using dpkg, and/or the encounters problems that had been solved previously in the debian packages. They feel that those are debian's fault. We need very little to do offer 3. to our customers. Most maintainers have a double boot machine (like me), or have a bo machine on their net, and launching recompilation of latest packages (after a small change in the changelog file) is a little waste of time (and gives more benefits). I remember of one developer who couldn't upgrade his only machine to hamm; he could only help doing non-maintainer uploads of new packages. Pay attention: nobody here is proposing to create a debian-1.4 libc5 based release! That would be a waste of energies. Only new packages and security fixes should be libc5-recompiled, not everything. Doing this, we will also establish a policy on _how_ should be handled releases for stable. It's my opinion that we should never move directly packages from unstable to stable, but in case recompile them on a stable-based machine (we had plenty of bugs because of that). Fabrizio -- | [EMAIL PROTECTED][EMAIL PROTECTED][EMAIL PROTECTED] | Pluto Leader - Debian Developer Happy Debian 1.3.1 User - vi-holic | 6F7267F5 fingerprint 57 16 C4 ED C9 86 40 7B 1A 69 A1 66 EC FB D2 5E Just because Red Hat do it doesn't mean it's a good idea. [Ian J.] -- TO UNSUBSCRIBE FROM THIS MAILING LIST: e-mail the word unsubscribe to [EMAIL PROTECTED] . Trouble? e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] .
Re: bo-updates packages
On 05-Dec-1997 02:11:22, Paul Seelig [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Steve Greenland) writes: And who is going to check and make sure that all the other packages in bo that use perl, bash and the few other important goodies still work the new versions? That's what a stable version is all about... Probably not you. True enough :-) But anyway who can guarantee that a mixed system consisting of a mere hodge podge of bo and hamm behaves ok either? Nobody, but I don't *expect* it to, either. I guess my theory on this is that if the change is small enough to expect no problems (i.e. perl-5.003 - perl-5.004 (or whatever the actual number are)), then is it *really* necessary to provide the upgrade? The people who care most about being on the leading edge of releases can mess around with hamm or build their own. There's a basic contradiction between stable and newest. It seems to me that that somehow by putting new releases of packages under the tree named stable (logically, not necessarily physically), that they magically *become* stable. Guess why i proposed to name a directory with libc5 compiled hamm packages bo-unstable? Sorry, didn't see that: the Subject line says bo-updates, which would make most people leap for their ftp program, without much thought about what they are getting. If people must do this, it seems to me the correct name is not 'bo-anything', but 'hamm-libc5'. steve -- Steve Greenland -- TO UNSUBSCRIBE FROM THIS MAILING LIST: e-mail the word unsubscribe to [EMAIL PROTECTED] . Trouble? e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] .
Re: bo-updates packages
Steve Greenland [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Nobody, but I don't *expect* it to, either. I guess my theory on this is that if the change is small enough to expect no problems (i.e. perl-5.003 - perl-5.004 (or whatever the actual number are)), then is it *really* necessary to provide the upgrade? Don't forget that installing this *minor* upgrade would break *all* the packages like perl-tk that depend on a particular version of perl. Come to think of it, I think I need to change my perl-tk Depends to be more restrictive... -- Rob Browning [EMAIL PROTECTED] PGP fingerprint = E8 0E 0D 04 F5 21 A0 94 53 2B 97 F5 D6 4E 39 30 -- TO UNSUBSCRIBE FROM THIS MAILING LIST: e-mail the word unsubscribe to [EMAIL PROTECTED] . Trouble? e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] .
Re: bo-updates packages
Paul Seelig [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Guess why i proposed to name a directory with libc5 compiled hamm packages bo-unstable? Surely bo-unstable == hamm, so please invest your time in hamm, not something that will be discarded in a few months. Martin. -- TO UNSUBSCRIBE FROM THIS MAILING LIST: e-mail the word unsubscribe to [EMAIL PROTECTED] . Trouble? e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] .
Re: bo-updates packages
On Fri, Dec 05, 1997 at 11:23:33AM +0100, Paul Seelig wrote: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Martin Mitchell) writes: Surely bo-unstable == hamm, so please invest your time in hamm, not something that will be discarded in a few months. Sure, but why invest my time in hamm which will be obsoleted in half a year anyway? While i like updated components i'm rather conservative regarding complete system upgrades. For me bo is running fine enough but i'd like to use a few features only present in more recent versions of Debian software. What's so bad about being a bit more oriented towards a user's perspective? The problem is that hamm is taking too long already. (Note that this is my view, not an official one.) There are many, many bugs registered in the bug system, still several packages which have not been upgraded to libc6, and other things to do. Spending time compiling packages for libc5 would be nice, but it does take time away from getting the next version ready. Further, although some time has already been spent working out policy for this, it's probably a once off problem -- it was much simpler to run bo packages on rex, and rex packages on buzz before that, because there wasn't a significant underlying change like the libc6 one involved. So, I think if somebody really wants to run some newer software (which isn't necessarily stable in our terms), then the choices are: 1. compile it from sources -- ugly, but workable. Even to the extent of making your own packages, which I gather youve done. 2. upgrade to the unstable package, and in the case of hamm, install enough of hamm to run it. This isn't actually that much; new ldso, libc6, new libc5 I think, and some libraries. With such a system, you can run libc6 binaries but compilation is done for libc5, etc. I have such a system and it works fine. (3. try to backport the package yourself.) Hamish -- Hamish Moffatt, [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED] Latest Debian packages at ftp://ftp.rising.com.au/pub/hamish. PGP#EFA6B9D5 -- TO UNSUBSCRIBE FROM THIS MAILING LIST: e-mail the word unsubscribe to [EMAIL PROTECTED] . Trouble? e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] .
Re: bo-updates packages
Paul Seelig [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Surely bo-unstable == hamm, so please invest your time in hamm, not something that will be discarded in a few months. Sure, but why invest my time in hamm which will be obsoleted in half a year anyway? Wrong. What is your basis for saying this? While i like updated components i'm rather conservative regarding complete system upgrades. For me bo is running fine enough but i'd like to use a few features only present in more recent versions of Debian software. What's so bad about being a bit more oriented towards a user's perspective? Nothing, if you want to you may recompile recent packages for your system. Well, i prefer to use the few months (pretty much time waiting BTW) until final release of hamm to upgrade the relyably stable system i'm working with now. I need software i can use today and can't wait for tomorrow to happen. Hey, Debian is not Microsoft! I need software I can use today too, and hamm has that software right now. Thanks to all the other developers for their hard work to build that software. Martin. -- TO UNSUBSCRIBE FROM THIS MAILING LIST: e-mail the word unsubscribe to [EMAIL PROTECTED] . Trouble? e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] .
Re: bo-updates packages
On 04-Dec-1997 14:08:59, Paul Seelig [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Mark Baker) writes: Well, this temporary problem lasts since quite a while now and i fear that it will last for quite a while longer. I don't expect Debian-2.0 to happen earlier than somewhere at the end of january next year. So why not update some crucial packages for bo resulting maybe in a minor interim release? How about perl-5.004, the current bash and a few other important goodies? And who is going to check and make sure that all the other packages in bo that use perl, bash and the few other important goodies still work the new versions? That's what a stable version is all about... steve -- Steve Greenland -- TO UNSUBSCRIBE FROM THIS MAILING LIST: e-mail the word unsubscribe to [EMAIL PROTECTED] . Trouble? e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] .
Re: bo-updates packages
On Tue, Dec 02, 1997 at 08:39:35PM -0500, Joey Hess wrote: Hamish Moffatt wrote: To control the version number of the .deb produced, you can either add something to the changelog (which isn't desirable in this case I think), or call dpkg-gencontrol with the version on the command line. Why wouldn't you want to add something like * backported to libc5 to the changelog? Makes sense to me.. Hmmm, ok. What's the story with source for bo-updates? Obviously changelog and rules changes are required, so a new source upload would probably be in order too. Can we have a standard rule to produce a back-ported package, so that the non-i386 people can do it too? Or since Debian has never formally been released on non-i386, doesn't it matter? Or does any of this matter ? :-) Hamish -- Hamish Moffatt, [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED] Latest Debian packages at ftp://ftp.rising.com.au/pub/hamish. PGP#EFA6B9D5 -- TO UNSUBSCRIBE FROM THIS MAILING LIST: e-mail the word unsubscribe to [EMAIL PROTECTED] . Trouble? e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] .
Re: bo-updates packages
In article [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Adam P. Harris) writes: The issue of keeping Debian bo crunchy and fresh w/o inhibiting the bold experimentalism of the hamm lineage is critical to Debian's success. It hopefully won't be a problem once hamm is released. With a completely new set of libraries it is not possible to run hamm packages on a bo system, but hopefully debian 2.1 packages will run on a hamm system correctly; I can't see much point in going to a lot of effort to fix a temporary problem.
