Bug#1028375: still conflicting with manpages-fr 4.16.0-3~bpo11+1

2023-02-01 Thread Helge Kreutzmann
Hello Thorsten,
On Wed, Feb 01, 2023 at 04:03:12PM +, Thorsten Glaser wrote:
> Helge Kreutzmann dixit:
> 
> >> >odler than stable. It also shipped them in every backport until
> >> >4.16.0-3~bpo11+1. It is also in the upcoming 4.17.0-2~bpo11+1.
> >> >
> >> >But I wonder if I should remove them there.
> >>
> >> Yes, please. Otherwise it’s impossible to do the package
> 
> >Done in the upcoming 4.17.0-2~bpo11+1.
> >
> >For the three languages where we have a conflict, namely, de, fr and
> >uk.
> 
> Okay. So, assuming no newer version of manpages-{de,fr,uk} will
> bring them in, in either bpo or bookworm/sid, xz-utils now needs
> Replaces+Breaks on manpages-{de,fr,uk} (<< 4.17.0-2~bpo11+1) in sid.
> (Also assuming 4.17.0-2 does not have them.)
> 
> That is, from the xz-utils PoV 4.17.0-2~bpo11+1 and 4.17.0-2
> are the first “fixed” (as in, don’t ship conflicting files)
> versions and all later ones will not “regress”.

The removal is intended to stay in the package. 

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#1028375: still conflicting with manpages-fr 4.16.0-3~bpo11+1

2023-02-01 Thread Thorsten Glaser
Helge Kreutzmann dixit:

>> >odler than stable. It also shipped them in every backport until
>> >4.16.0-3~bpo11+1. It is also in the upcoming 4.17.0-2~bpo11+1.
>> >
>> >But I wonder if I should remove them there.
>>
>> Yes, please. Otherwise it’s impossible to do the package

>Done in the upcoming 4.17.0-2~bpo11+1.
>
>For the three languages where we have a conflict, namely, de, fr and
>uk.

Okay. So, assuming no newer version of manpages-{de,fr,uk} will
bring them in, in either bpo or bookworm/sid, xz-utils now needs
Replaces+Breaks on manpages-{de,fr,uk} (<< 4.17.0-2~bpo11+1) in sid.
(Also assuming 4.17.0-2 does not have them.)

That is, from the xz-utils PoV 4.17.0-2~bpo11+1 and 4.17.0-2
are the first “fixed” (as in, don’t ship conflicting files)
versions and all later ones will not “regress”.

bye,
//mirabilos
-- 
Yes, I hate users and I want them to suffer.
-- Marco d'Itri on gmane.linux.debian.devel.general



Bug#1028375: still conflicting with manpages-fr 4.16.0-3~bpo11+1

2023-02-01 Thread Helge Kreutzmann
Hello Thorsten,
On Wed, Feb 01, 2023 at 03:11:19PM +, Thorsten Glaser wrote:
> Helge Kreutzmann dixit:
> 
> >odler than stable. It also shipped them in every backport until
> >4.16.0-3~bpo11+1. It is also in the upcoming 4.17.0-2~bpo11+1.
> >
> >But I wonder if I should remove them there.
> 
> Yes, please. Otherwise it’s impossible to do the package
> relationships right. This will leave users of xz-utils from
> stable with manpages-fr from backports without french xz
> manpages, but it’s the only way to do this that doesn’t
> cause worse trouble elsewhere.

Done in the upcoming 4.17.0-2~bpo11+1.

For the three languages where we have a conflict, namely, de, fr and
uk.

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#1028375: still conflicting with manpages-fr 4.16.0-3~bpo11+1

2023-02-01 Thread Thorsten Glaser
Helge Kreutzmann dixit:

>odler than stable. It also shipped them in every backport until
>4.16.0-3~bpo11+1. It is also in the upcoming 4.17.0-2~bpo11+1.
>
>But I wonder if I should remove them there.

Yes, please. Otherwise it’s impossible to do the package
relationships right. This will leave users of xz-utils from
stable with manpages-fr from backports without french xz
manpages, but it’s the only way to do this that doesn’t
cause worse trouble elsewhere.

Otherwise, xz-utils will have to add a conflict with 4.17.0-2
*in bookworm/sid*, and that will also carry to the next
xz-utils backport (if any) *and* it’ll require an xz-utils
upload *in bookworm/sid* for every manpages-fr upload to bpo.

bye,
//mirabilos
-- 
15:41⎜ Somebody write a testsuite for helloworld :-)



Bug#1028375: still conflicting with manpages-fr 4.16.0-3~bpo11+1

2023-02-01 Thread Helge Kreutzmann
Hello Sebastian,
lets clarify the facts:

Xz-utils ships the localized manpages since 5.2.7. I do not see any
backport yet, I assume it will be 5.4.1-0.0~bpo11+1

manpages-l10n shipped the localized manpages before 4.1.0-1. This is
odler than stable. It also shipped them in every backport until
4.16.0-3~bpo11+1. It is also in the upcoming 4.17.0-2~bpo11+1.

But I wonder if I should remove them there. Please tell me, which
languages you (intend to) ship in the backport.

On Tue, Jan 31, 2023 at 09:50:20AM +, Thorsten Glaser wrote:
> Sebastian Andrzej Siewior dixit:
> 
> >It is bpo but if you look I'd you look at the files for the same
> >version in bpo and sid you will see that sid skipped a few man pages
> >while bpo created them.
> 
> Ouch!
> 
> That adds to the problems, of course. That makes fully resolving
> this in all possible combinations a nightmare.
> 
> In general, these have to go:

Let's try:

> stable → next-stable

No problem, manpages-l10n never shipped it in stable and next-stable.

> stable → stable+backports

I assume if I *remove* the xz manpages for 4.17.0-2~bpo11+1, then
users upgrading manpages-l10n and/or xz-utils get the translations
from xz-utils (no longer from manpages-l10n). I keep the conflict, in
case they take xz-utils with manpages-l10n 4.16.0-3~bpo11+1 installed.

> stable+backports → next-stable

The conflict in manpages-l10n backports ensures that it is not
co-installed with xz-utils in next-stable.

> stable+backports → stable+backports+backports-sloppy

I don't know "stable+backports+backports-sloppy" and I never uploaded
to -sloppy.

> stable+backports+backports-sloppy → next-stable+backports

Dito.

> stable → testing (at any point)

No problem, manpages-l10n never shipped the localizied man-pages in
stable.

> stable → unstable (at any point)

The same.

> testing → testing (at any point)

The same.

> testing → unstable (at any point)

The same.

> unstable → unstable (at any point)

The same.

> testing (at any point) → next-stable

The same.

> stable+backports → testing (at any point)

The conflict in the upcoming manpages-l10n 4.17.0-2~bpo11+1 should
ensure this.

> stable+backports → unstable (at any point)

The same.

> In addition, partial upgrades that do not span more than a release
> either way need to work (so you could have, say, manpages-fr from
> buster and xz-utils from sid(before the bookworm release), or vice
> versa, on one single bullseye system).

I think these are covered in your considerations above.

> Explicit Depends are needed to make all these either work or the
> package manager not consider them (which forces upgrading a part
> of the system to match). In addition, Build-Depends need versioning
> unless present in stable, better oldstable, because buildds are not
> required to upgrade (only update) before a run, plus packages can be
> lagging on some architectures.

I don't see any depends involved here, Replaces/Breaks and conflicts
should suffice. 

There should not be any problems with build-depends.

> Now backports take from testing at the point of backporting.
> If the backported packages significantly differ from the
> package in testing, however, combinatory explosion, as the
> above holds true for every single package…

This is what we try to tame here, yes. And I hope we did it right.

> In particular, I’ve personally held back from backporting
> packages when I know I had versioned constraints on the
> package in question but backporting would require bringing
> the old behaviour back (i.e. the backported package needs
> to behave like the new one, not the old one, and if that’s
> not possible in the old distro, then don’t package it).

Translations need to mirror the english content. If that evolves in
backports, then so do need the translations. 

> I see why this would be a problem for manpages… but you
> cannot re-enable manpages in bpo that aren’t in testing
> meaningfully when there’s also a backport of the package
> from testing that includes the manpage (and you cannot
> meaningfully drop the manpage from the backport because
> then the package relationships aren’t possible any more).

Yes, this is the first time a translation moved packages *and* there
was a backport of said package (here: xz-utils).

> Good luck,

Thanks

   Greetings

-- 
  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#1028375: still conflicting with manpages-fr 4.16.0-3~bpo11+1

2023-01-31 Thread Thorsten Glaser
Sebastian Andrzej Siewior dixit:

>It is bpo but if you look I'd you look at the files for the same
>version in bpo and sid you will see that sid skipped a few man pages
>while bpo created them.

Ouch!

That adds to the problems, of course. That makes fully resolving
this in all possible combinations a nightmare.

In general, these have to go:

stable → next-stable
stable → stable+backports
stable+backports → next-stable
stable+backports → stable+backports+backports-sloppy
stable+backports+backports-sloppy → next-stable+backports
stable → testing (at any point)
stable → unstable (at any point)
testing → testing (at any point)
testing → unstable (at any point)
unstable → unstable (at any point)
testing (at any point) → next-stable
stable+backports → testing (at any point)
stable+backports → unstable (at any point)

In addition, partial upgrades that do not span more than a release
either way need to work (so you could have, say, manpages-fr from
buster and xz-utils from sid(before the bookworm release), or vice
versa, on one single bullseye system).

Explicit Depends are needed to make all these either work or the
package manager not consider them (which forces upgrading a part
of the system to match). In addition, Build-Depends need versioning
unless present in stable, better oldstable, because buildds are not
required to upgrade (only update) before a run, plus packages can be
lagging on some architectures.

Now backports take from testing at the point of backporting.
If the backported packages significantly differ from the
package in testing, however, combinatory explosion, as the
above holds true for every single package…

In particular, I’ve personally held back from backporting
packages when I know I had versioned constraints on the
package in question but backporting would require bringing
the old behaviour back (i.e. the backported package needs
to behave like the new one, not the old one, and if that’s
not possible in the old distro, then don’t package it).

I see why this would be a problem for manpages… but you
cannot re-enable manpages in bpo that aren’t in testing
meaningfully when there’s also a backport of the package
from testing that includes the manpage (and you cannot
meaningfully drop the manpage from the backport because
then the package relationships aren’t possible any more).

Good luck,
//mirabilos
-- 
 you introduced a merge commit│ % g rebase -i HEAD^^
 sorry, no idea and rebasing just fscked │ Segmentation
 should have cloned into a clean repo  │  fault (core dumped)
 if I rebase that now, it's really ugh │ wuahh



Bug#1028375: still conflicting with manpages-fr 4.16.0-3~bpo11+1

2023-01-31 Thread Sebastian Andrzej Siewior
On 31 January 2023 08:00:23 UTC, Thorsten Glaser  wrote:
>Sebastian Andrzej Siewior dixit:
>
>>Then I will update the versions as suggested. My understanding was the
>>problem persists because the bpo version was not yet updated. The
>>version in sid did not ship the man-pages.
>
>The bpo version was once in both sid and testing and this
>is therefore a problem for people updating incrementally.

It is bpo but if you look I'd you look at the files for the same version in bpo 
and sid you will see that sid skipped a few man pages while bpo created them.

>
>bye,
>//mirabilos


-- 
Sebastian



Bug#1028375: still conflicting with manpages-fr 4.16.0-3~bpo11+1

2023-01-31 Thread Thorsten Glaser
Sebastian Andrzej Siewior dixit:

>Then I will update the versions as suggested. My understanding was the
>problem persists because the bpo version was not yet updated. The
>version in sid did not ship the man-pages.

The bpo version was once in both sid and testing and this
is therefore a problem for people updating incrementally.

bye,
//mirabilos
-- 
15:41⎜ Somebody write a testsuite for helloworld :-)



Bug#1028375: still conflicting with manpages-fr 4.16.0-3~bpo11+1

2023-01-30 Thread Sebastian Andrzej Siewior
On 2023-01-30 21:57:28 [+], Thorsten Glaser wrote:
> Sebastian Andrzej Siewior dixit:
> 
> >Okay. So I do nothing and just wait for the bpo package to appear which
> >will then solve the problem?
> 
> No, you must fix the problem in xz-utils in bookworm/sid as well.
> It also exists outside of backports.

Then I will update the versions as suggested. My understanding was the
problem persists because the bpo version was not yet updated. The
version in sid did not ship the man-pages.

> bye,
> //mirabilos

Sebastian



Bug#1028375: still conflicting with manpages-fr 4.16.0-3~bpo11+1

2023-01-30 Thread Thorsten Glaser
Sebastian Andrzej Siewior dixit:

>Okay. So I do nothing and just wait for the bpo package to appear which
>will then solve the problem?

No, you must fix the problem in xz-utils in bookworm/sid as well.
It also exists outside of backports.

bye,
//mirabilos
-- 
22:20⎜ The crazy that persists in his craziness becomes a master
22:21⎜ And the distance between the craziness and geniality is
only measured by the success 18:35⎜ "Psychotics are consistently
inconsistent. The essence of sanity is to be inconsistently inconsistent



Bug#1028375: still conflicting with manpages-fr 4.16.0-3~bpo11+1

2023-01-30 Thread Thorsten Glaser
Helge Kreutzmann dixit:

>The problem is that we both upload (conflicting) packages to
>backports. I'm not sure a good solution exists here.

No, you need to fix the package relationships for incremental
and partial upgrades in sid anyway.

As far as I can tell, manpages-fr had the first version of
xz-utils that ships the pages in its Breaks+Replaces, but
xz-utils’ Breaks+Replaces did not cover all versions of
manpages-fr that also shipped the pages.

bye,
//mirabilos
-- 
 you introduced a merge commit│ % g rebase -i HEAD^^
 sorry, no idea and rebasing just fscked │ Segmentation
 should have cloned into a clean repo  │  fault (core dumped)
 if I rebase that now, it's really ugh │ wuahh



Bug#1028375: still conflicting with manpages-fr 4.16.0-3~bpo11+1

2023-01-30 Thread Sebastian Andrzej Siewior
On 2023-01-30 21:51:11 [+0100], Helge Kreutzmann wrote:
> Hello Sebastian,
Hi Helge,

> On Mon, Jan 30, 2023 at 07:53:51PM +0100, Sebastian Andrzej Siewior wrote:
> > On 2023-01-30 18:04:35 [+], Thorsten Glaser wrote:
> > > reopen 1028375
> > > found 1028375 5.4.1-0.0
> > > thanks
> > > 
> > > Patrice Duroux dixit:
> > > 
> > > >Was this supposed to be closed? Or will it be with another manpages-fr 
> > > >bpo?
> 
> So far the manpages-fr bpo has not yet happend. My sponsor intends to
> upload it today and then we need to wait for NEW processing.

okay.

> > > 5.4.1-0.0 only conflicts with manpages-fr (<< 4.1.0-1)
> > > so the upload did not fix the problem.
> > > 
> > > As far as I can tell it must be (<< 4.17.0-1~) instead.
> > > (Also do note the tilde, it breaks bpo otherwise.)
> > 
> > Okay. So I add this new suggested version and close 1028375?
> 
> The problem is that we both upload (conflicting) packages to
> backports. I'm not sure a good solution exists here.
> 
> If the freeze continues for quite some time, even 4.18.0-1~ might hit
> backports. (In the last freeze it was the case.).
> 
> This is rather tricky.

Okay. So I do nothing and just wait for the bpo package to appear which
will then solve the problem?

> Greetings
> 
> Helge

Sebastian



Bug#1028375: still conflicting with manpages-fr 4.16.0-3~bpo11+1

2023-01-30 Thread Helge Kreutzmann
Hello Sebastian,
On Mon, Jan 30, 2023 at 07:53:51PM +0100, Sebastian Andrzej Siewior wrote:
> On 2023-01-30 18:04:35 [+], Thorsten Glaser wrote:
> > reopen 1028375
> > found 1028375 5.4.1-0.0
> > thanks
> > 
> > Patrice Duroux dixit:
> > 
> > >Was this supposed to be closed? Or will it be with another manpages-fr bpo?

So far the manpages-fr bpo has not yet happend. My sponsor intends to
upload it today and then we need to wait for NEW processing.

> > 5.4.1-0.0 only conflicts with manpages-fr (<< 4.1.0-1)
> > so the upload did not fix the problem.
> > 
> > As far as I can tell it must be (<< 4.17.0-1~) instead.
> > (Also do note the tilde, it breaks bpo otherwise.)
> 
> Okay. So I add this new suggested version and close 1028375?

The problem is that we both upload (conflicting) packages to
backports. I'm not sure a good solution exists here.

If the freeze continues for quite some time, even 4.18.0-1~ might hit
backports. (In the last freeze it was the case.).

This is rather tricky.

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#1028375: still conflicting with manpages-fr 4.16.0-3~bpo11+1

2023-01-30 Thread Thorsten Glaser
Sebastian Andrzej Siewior dixit:

>> As far as I can tell it must be (<< 4.17.0-1~) instead.
>> (Also do note the tilde, it breaks bpo otherwise.)
>
>Okay. So I add this new suggested version and close 1028375?

I think so. 4.17.0-1 was the first version of -fr to not
ship it any more (from reading its changelog), and the tilde
is to permit 4.17.0-1~bpo* to match. It’d need to update
both Breaks and Replaces. (I hope I got this right, too ☺)

bye,
//mirabilos
-- 
15:41⎜ Somebody write a testsuite for helloworld :-)



Bug#1028375: still conflicting with manpages-fr 4.16.0-3~bpo11+1

2023-01-30 Thread Sebastian Andrzej Siewior
On 2023-01-30 18:04:35 [+], Thorsten Glaser wrote:
> reopen 1028375
> found 1028375 5.4.1-0.0
> thanks
> 
> Patrice Duroux dixit:
> 
> >Was this supposed to be closed? Or will it be with another manpages-fr bpo?
> 
> 5.4.1-0.0 only conflicts with manpages-fr (<< 4.1.0-1)
> so the upload did not fix the problem.
> 
> As far as I can tell it must be (<< 4.17.0-1~) instead.
> (Also do note the tilde, it breaks bpo otherwise.)

Okay. So I add this new suggested version and close 1028375?

> bye,
> //mirabilos

Sebastian



Bug#1028375: still conflicting with manpages-fr 4.16.0-3~bpo11+1

2023-01-30 Thread Thorsten Glaser
reopen 1028375
found 1028375 5.4.1-0.0
thanks

Patrice Duroux dixit:

>Was this supposed to be closed? Or will it be with another manpages-fr bpo?

5.4.1-0.0 only conflicts with manpages-fr (<< 4.1.0-1)
so the upload did not fix the problem.

As far as I can tell it must be (<< 4.17.0-1~) instead.
(Also do note the tilde, it breaks bpo otherwise.)

This is not only needed for bpo but also for incremental
updates within sid.

bye,
//mirabilos
-- 
15:41⎜ Somebody write a testsuite for helloworld :-)



Bug#1028375: still conflicting with manpages-fr 4.16.0-3~bpo11+1

2023-01-30 Thread Patrice Duroux
Hi,

During an upgrade from Bullseye with some bpo packages to
Testing/Bookworm, I faced the following issue:

Dépaquetage de xz-utils (5.4.1-0.0) sur (5.2.5-2.1~deb11u1) ...
dpkg: erreur de traitement de l'archive
/tmp/apt-dpkg-install-IJKguW/37-xz-utils_5.4.1-0.0_amd64.deb
(--unpack) :
 tentative de remplacement de « /usr/share/man/fr/man1/xz.1.gz », qui
appartient aussi au paquet manpages-fr 4.16.0-3~bpo11+1

(sorry for the French output)
Was this supposed to be closed? Or will it be with another manpages-fr bpo?

Thanks,
Patrice