Re: 469 packages still using dh_undocumented, check if one is yours
On Sat, Jul 05, 2003 at 11:22:06PM +0200, Artur R. Czechowski wrote: > On Sat, Jul 05, 2003 at 11:26:44AM -0400, Joey Hess wrote: > > Goswin Brederlow wrote: > > > Could the dh_undocumented programm allways fail with an error "Don't > > > use me" as the next step? That way all new uploads will be forced to > > > care. > > No. Breaking 400+ packages so our uses cannot build them from source is > > unacceptable. > What's about dh_undocumented looking like: > -- > #!/bin/bash > if [ $FORCE_UNDOCUMENTED = 1 ]; then What part of "don't break compatibility unless it provides a noticeable benefit" don't you understand? Breaking package builds for no good reason is bad. Cheers, -- Colin Watson [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: 469 packages still using dh_undocumented, check if one is yours
"Artur R. Czechowski" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > On Sat, Jul 05, 2003 at 11:26:44AM -0400, Joey Hess wrote: > > Goswin Brederlow wrote: > > > Could the dh_undocumented programm allways fail with an error "Don't > > > use me" as the next step? That way all new uploads will be forced to > > > care. > > No. Breaking 400+ packages so our uses cannot build them from source is > > unacceptable. > What's about dh_undocumented looking like: > -- > #!/bin/bash > if [ $FORCE_UNDOCUMENTED = 1 ]; then > echo You are still using dh_undocumented which is obsoleted. > echo Stop it. > else > echo You are using obsoleted dh_undocumented in your debian/rules. > echo Please stop it and prepare a manpage for your package. > echo If you really want to build this package read (pointer to > documentation which explains how to set FORCE_UNDOCUMENTED or how to remove > this from debian/rules and why using dh_undocumented is bad). > exit 1 > fi > -- > > Pro: > - it is possible to build package with buildd or any other autobuilder > - human building package can force it to build too > - it requires an interaction from developer, but this interaction is not > time consuming > > This is a good compromise between technical and social means to achieve a > goal. I would have reversed it. Use "$FAIL_UNDOCUMENTED" and have autobuilders set that. Unknowing users aren't bothered, old sources still compile but new uploads are forced to handle the issue. But Joey stoped reading this so nothing will happen. EOD. MfG Goswin
Re: 469 packages still using dh_undocumented, check if one is yours
Artur R. Czechowski wrote: > What's about dh_undocumented looking like: > -- > #!/bin/bash > if [ $FORCE_UNDOCUMENTED = 1 ]; then > echo You are still using dh_undocumented which is obsoleted. > echo Stop it. > else > echo You are using obsoleted dh_undocumented in your debian/rules. > echo Please stop it and prepare a manpage for your package. > echo If you really want to build this package read (pointer to > documentation which explains how to set FORCE_UNDOCUMENTED or how to remove > this from debian/rules and why using dh_undocumented is bad). > exit 1 > fi Why should I put the user to all this trouble when as I stated in my first mail to this thread, calls to the program are already being removed at a rate that is satisfactory? Think how much more annoying building packages would be if this practice became widespread. Really, I am able to deal with these things on my own. If I need help I will ask. Thank you all for your comments, but I have stopped reading this thread now. -- see shy jo pgpgSbqKVFUdo.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: 469 packages still using dh_undocumented, check if one is yours
On Sat, Jul 05, 2003 at 11:26:44AM -0400, Joey Hess wrote: > Goswin Brederlow wrote: > > Could the dh_undocumented programm allways fail with an error "Don't > > use me" as the next step? That way all new uploads will be forced to > > care. > No. Breaking 400+ packages so our uses cannot build them from source is > unacceptable. What's about dh_undocumented looking like: -- #!/bin/bash if [ $FORCE_UNDOCUMENTED = 1 ]; then echo You are still using dh_undocumented which is obsoleted. echo Stop it. else echo You are using obsoleted dh_undocumented in your debian/rules. echo Please stop it and prepare a manpage for your package. echo If you really want to build this package read (pointer to documentation which explains how to set FORCE_UNDOCUMENTED or how to remove this from debian/rules and why using dh_undocumented is bad). exit 1 fi -- Pro: - it is possible to build package with buildd or any other autobuilder - human building package can force it to build too - it requires an interaction from developer, but this interaction is not time consuming This is a good compromise between technical and social means to achieve a goal. Regards Artur -- "#gaduly to jak wenezuelski serial. Nieważne, ile odcinków opuścisz zawsze będziesz na czasie" /Czesiu/ pgpIplgLvwznq.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: 469 packages still using dh_undocumented, check if one is yours
On Sat, Jul 05, 2003 at 08:51:27PM +0200, Goswin Brederlow wrote: > Bernd Eckenfels <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > On Sat, Jul 05, 2003 at 04:43:56PM +0200, Goswin Brederlow wrote: > > > Could the dh_undocumented programm allways fail with an error "Don't > > > use me" as the next step? That way all new uploads will be forced to > > > care. > > > > this will still create fail to build bugs for no good reason. > > Some sort of "Hey you, your doing something wrong but I will let is > pass this time" feedback from autobuilder would be nice together with > keeping such nearly broken packages out of testing (to give some > incentive for mainatiner to fix the problem). They are *not* "nearly broken". They are just out of date by a few months. Why this urge to break compatibility? What useful purpose does it serve? -- Colin Watson [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: 469 packages still using dh_undocumented, check if one is yours
Bernd Eckenfels <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > On Sat, Jul 05, 2003 at 04:43:56PM +0200, Goswin Brederlow wrote: > > Could the dh_undocumented programm allways fail with an error "Don't > > use me" as the next step? That way all new uploads will be forced to > > care. > > this will still create fail to build bugs for no good reason. Some sort of "Hey you, your doing something wrong but I will let is pass this time" feedback from autobuilder would be nice together with keeping such nearly broken packages out of testing (to give some incentive for mainatiner to fix the problem). But that probably goes too far. MfG Goswin
Re: 469 packages still using dh_undocumented, check if one is yours
On Sat, Jul 05, 2003 at 04:43:56PM +0200, Goswin Brederlow wrote: > Could the dh_undocumented programm allways fail with an error "Don't > use me" as the next step? That way all new uploads will be forced to > care. this will still create fail to build bugs for no good reason. Greetings Bernd -- (OO) -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- ( .. ) [EMAIL PROTECTED],linux.de,debian.org} http://home.pages.de/~eckes/ o--o *plush* 2048/93600EFD [EMAIL PROTECTED] +497257930613 BE5-RIPE (OO) When cryptography is outlawed, bayl bhgynjf jvyy unir cevinpl!
Re: 469 packages still using dh_undocumented, check if one is yours
Goswin Brederlow wrote: > Joey Hess <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > > Artur R. Czechowski wrote: > > > OTOH, maybe dh_undocumented should be removed from debhelper with prior > > > notice? "This program does nothing and should no longer be used." > > > > As a rule I try to avoid causing less than 469 FTBFS bugs with any given > > change I make to debhelper. I have removed programs when as many as > > three packages still used them, after appropriate bug reports and a two > > month grace period. > > Could the dh_undocumented programm allways fail with an error "Don't > use me" as the next step? That way all new uploads will be forced to > care. No. Breaking 400+ packages so our uses cannot build them from source is unacceptable. -- see shy jo pgpDqNT8NFeuR.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: 469 packages still using dh_undocumented, check if one is yours
Joey Hess <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > Artur R. Czechowski wrote: > > OTOH, maybe dh_undocumented should be removed from debhelper with prior > > notice? "This program does nothing and should no longer be used." > > As a rule I try to avoid causing less than 469 FTBFS bugs with any given > change I make to debhelper. I have removed programs when as many as > three packages still used them, after appropriate bug reports and a two > month grace period. Could the dh_undocumented programm allways fail with an error "Don't use me" as the next step? That way all new uploads will be forced to care. MfG Goswin
Re: 469 packages still using dh_undocumented, check if one is yours
Artur R. Czechowski wrote: > OTOH, maybe dh_undocumented should be removed from debhelper with prior > notice? "This program does nothing and should no longer be used." As a rule I try to avoid causing less than 469 FTBFS bugs with any given change I make to debhelper. I have removed programs when as many as three packages still used them, after appropriate bug reports and a two month grace period. -- see shy jo pgpOWvoz2vuIK.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: 469 packages still using dh_undocumented, check if one is yours
On Fri, Jul 04, 2003 at 11:57:54PM +0200, Artur R. Czechowski wrote: > I think that next step to be taken is informing concerned developers > by email (debian-devel isn't obligatory). This is not needed, it is included in the policy change document. All developers who upgrade the policy standard will read it. > And next, after some reasonable(*) > time, filling bug reports against packages which doesn't comply with policy. You should only to that for packages which actually _do_ state, that they are 3.5.8 or higher. > If you agree with me I can do this dirty work. Well, I dont see the point in mass filing bugs for lintian warnings/errors. Greetings Bernd -- (OO) -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- ( .. ) [EMAIL PROTECTED],linux.de,debian.org} http://home.pages.de/~eckes/ o--o *plush* 2048/93600EFD [EMAIL PROTECTED] +497257930613 BE5-RIPE (OO) When cryptography is outlawed, bayl bhgynjf jvyy unir cevinpl!
Re: 469 packages still using dh_undocumented, check if one is yours
On Fri, Jul 04, 2003 at 10:27:35PM +0200, Andreas Barth wrote: > It _is_ already the case, also for linda. And you can get results > quite easy from > http://lintian.debian.org/reports/Tlink-to-undocumented-manpage.html This is treated by lintian as a warning. Policy says, that lack of manpage is considered as a bug. Shouldn't be its priority raised to error? I think that next step to be taken is informing concerned developers by email (debian-devel isn't obligatory). And next, after some reasonable(*) time, filling bug reports against packages which doesn't comply with policy. If you agree with me I can do this dirty work. (*) I am not sure, that bugfilling should be done before sarge comes to stable. But it should be done at the latest after release new stable. Regards Czesiu -- Nie wszystko dioda, co sie świeci /z pamiętnika administratora/
Re: 469 packages still using dh_undocumented, check if one is yours
* Bernd Eckenfels ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [030704 20:50]: > On Fri, Jul 04, 2003 at 07:24:20PM +0200, Artur R. Czechowski wrote: > > OTOH, maybe dh_undocumented should be removed from debhelper with prior > > notice? "This program does nothing and should no longer be used." > well, this would break compatibility. IMHO i think it is enough to add a > lintian check (well, i guess this is already the case) and add a todo on the > package overview page. It _is_ already the case, also for linda. And you can get results quite easy from http://lintian.debian.org/reports/Tlink-to-undocumented-manpage.html So no need for a extra tool. Cheers, Andi -- http://home.arcor.de/andreas-barth/ PGP 1024/89FB5CE5 DC F1 85 6D A6 45 9C 0F 3B BE F1 D0 C5 D1 D9 0C
Re: 469 packages still using dh_undocumented, check if one is yours
On Fri, Jul 04, 2003 at 07:24:20PM +0200, Artur R. Czechowski wrote: > OTOH, maybe dh_undocumented should be removed from debhelper with prior > notice? "This program does nothing and should no longer be used." well, this would break compatibility. IMHO i think it is enough to add a lintian check (well, i guess this is already the case) and add a todo on the package overview page. Actually vhanging the policy in that respect does create a lot of additional work and bugs, and we should just let this settle down, in 12 month or so this issue will be resolved without too much work wasted. Greetings Bernd -- (OO) -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- ( .. ) [EMAIL PROTECTED],linux.de,debian.org} http://home.pages.de/~eckes/ o--o *plush* 2048/93600EFD [EMAIL PROTECTED] +497257930613 BE5-RIPE (OO) When cryptography is outlawed, bayl bhgynjf jvyy unir cevinpl!
Re: 469 packages still using dh_undocumented, check if one is yours
On Fri, Jul 04, 2003 at 05:59:57PM +0200, Benjamin Drieu wrote: > This doesn't help if you maintain dozens of packages and you just want > to know if one of your packages is offending. On Fri, Jul 04, 2003 at 06:18:06PM +0200, Tollef Fog Heen wrote: > Uhm, it's far easier just to generate the list so I can grep for my > name in it. Scanning a list of 469 packages takes a while. You're both right. Thanks for pointing me this. I maintain only two packages now :) OTOH, maybe dh_undocumented should be removed from debhelper with prior notice? "This program does nothing and should no longer be used." Regards Artur -- Tata: Jak się nazywasz? Synek: Igor spacja Sapijaszko. -- każde takie zgłoszenie [o bombie] sprawdzić musi nasz specjalista, powiedzmy pies /wypowiedź policjanta w TV/ pgpFso7dz8Yjv.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: 469 packages still using dh_undocumented, check if one is yours
* "Artur R. Czechowski" | On Fri, Jul 04, 2003 at 09:47:52AM +0200, Tollef Fog Heen wrote: | > | I came accross some sources still using dh_undocumented so I did a | > | quick search through sids *.diff.gz files. Here is the result: | > Such a list is useless unless it includes maintainer addresses (or | > just maintainer names) as well. | [EMAIL PROTECTED] | [EMAIL PROTECTED] | [EMAIL PROTECTED] Uhm, it's far easier just to generate the list so I can grep for my name in it. Scanning a list of 469 packages takes a while. -- Tollef Fog Heen,''`. UNIX is user friendly, it's just picky about who its friends are : :' : `. `' `-
Re: 469 packages still using dh_undocumented, check if one is yours
"Artur R. Czechowski" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > On Fri, Jul 04, 2003 at 09:47:52AM +0200, Tollef Fog Heen wrote: >> | I came accross some sources still using dh_undocumented so I did a >> | quick search through sids *.diff.gz files. Here is the result: >> Such a list is useless unless it includes maintainer addresses (or >> just maintainer names) as well. > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > ... This doesn't help if you maintain dozens of packages and you just want to know if one of your packages is offending. Cheers, Benjamin -- .''`. ; ;' ; Debian GNU/Linux | Benjamin Drieu `. `'http://www.debian.org/ | <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> `- pgp0EUSGMFsXt.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: 469 packages still using dh_undocumented, check if one is yours
On Fri, Jul 04, 2003 at 09:47:52AM +0200, Tollef Fog Heen wrote: > | I came accross some sources still using dh_undocumented so I did a > | quick search through sids *.diff.gz files. Here is the result: > Such a list is useless unless it includes maintainer addresses (or > just maintainer names) as well. [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] ... Regards Artur -- każde takie zgłoszenie [o bombie] sprawdzić musi nasz specjalista, powiedzmy pies /wypowiedź policjanta w TV/
Re: 469 packages still using dh_undocumented, check if one is yours
On Fri, 04 Jul 2003, Joey Hess wrote: > I've recently revamped my debhelper graph page to make it easier to > track deprecated programs. The ones that don't seem likely to go away at > all soon are dh_installmanpages and dh_movefiles. Especially since some of us do like dh_movefiles a LOT :-) -- "One disk to rule them all, One disk to find them. One disk to bring them all and in the darkness grind them. In the Land of Redmond where the shadows lie." -- The Silicon Valley Tarot Henrique Holschuh
Re: 469 packages still using dh_undocumented, check if one is yours
* Goswin Brederlow | I came accross some sources still using dh_undocumented so I did a | quick search through sids *.diff.gz files. Here is the result: [...] Such a list is useless unless it includes maintainer addresses (or just maintainer names) as well. -- Tollef Fog Heen,''`. UNIX is user friendly, it's just picky about who its friends are : :' : `. `' `-
Re: 469 packages still using dh_undocumented, check if one is yours
* Goswin Brederlow ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [030704 05:35]: > I came accross some sources still using dh_undocumented so I did a > quick search through sids *.diff.gz files. Here is the result: > [...] > libapache-mod-dav You must have done something wrong as since 1.0.3-6 dh_undocumented is not longer used by libapache-mod-dav. (And 1.0.3-6 is also in sarge for a while now.) Cheers, Andi -- http://home.arcor.de/andreas-barth/ PGP 1024/89FB5CE5 DC F1 85 6D A6 45 9C 0F 3B BE F1 D0 C5 D1 D9 0C
Re: 469 packages still using dh_undocumented, check if one is yours
Goswin Brederlow wrote: > I came accross some sources still using dh_undocumented so I did a > quick search through sids *.diff.gz files. Here is the result: At prsent rates, I expect we will be down to maybe 50 packages calling this in 1 year's time, at which point some bug reports could be filed. Of course many of the packages with this program in their rules file probably don't even use it. And it is a no-op. I've recently revamped my debhelper graph page to make it easier to track deprecated programs. The ones that don't seem likely to go away at all soon are dh_installmanpages and dh_movefiles. -- see shy jo pgpeyIAQyrCCT.pgp Description: PGP signature
469 packages still using dh_undocumented, check if one is yours
Hi, I came accross some sources still using dh_undocumented so I did a quick search through sids *.diff.gz files. Here is the result: find -name "*diff.gz" | xargs zgrep ':+[[:space:]]*dh_undocumented' \ | cut -f 1 -d"_" | sort -u | cut -f6- -d"/" ./dists/potato/main/source/devel/fda ./dists/potato/main/source/libs/libgd-gif ./dists/potato/main/source/otherosfs/lpkg ./dists/potato/main/source/web/cern-httpd 3dwm acfax acorn-fdisk adns adolc affiche alsaplayer am-utils amrita anthy antiword apcupsd-devel apcupsd aprsd aprsdigi argus-client ascdc asd4 aspseek at-spi atlas august ax25-apps ax25-tools bayonne bbmail bbpal bbsload bbtime bind binutils-avr bird bitcollider blackbook bnc bnlib bonobo-activation bonobo-conf bonobo-config bonobo bookview brahms bwbar cam camstream canna capi4hylafax catalog cdrtoaster cfengine cftp chasen checkmp3 chipmunk-log chrpath clanbomber clips codebreaker console-tools cooledit coriander corkscrew courier cpcieject crack ctn cutils cyrus-sasl dancer-services db2 db3 db4.0 dcgui dcl dctc dds2tar dia2sql directfb directory-administrator dotconf drscheme eb eblook elastic electric elvis epwutil erlang ethstats evolution ewipe ezpublish fcron fidelio firebird flink fluxbox fnord fort freewnn ftape-tools funny-manpages gaby gasql gato gbase gbiff gcc-2.95 gcc-2.96 gcc-3.0 gcc-3.2 gcc-3.3 gcc-avr gcc-snapshot gconf-editor gconf gconf2 gcrontab gdis gdkxft geda-doc geda-symbols gerris gimp1.2 gkrellm-newsticker gkrellm-reminder glade-2 glbiff glib2.0 gnet gnome-db gnome-db2 gnome-doc-tools gnome-gv gnome-libs gnome-think gnome-vfs gnome-vfs2 gnomesword gnu-smalltalk gnudip gnumail goo gpa gpgme gpgme0.4 gpm gpppkill gpsdrive gscanbus gstalker gtk+2.0 gtk-menu gtkglarea gtkmathview gtkwave guile-core gwave hamfax happy hesiod hmake hns2 htmlheadline hubcot hwtools i2e ibcs ic35link icebreaker iceconf icom inews intltool iog ipv6calc ipxripd ircp jabber jack-audio-connection-kit jags jailtool jenova jfbterm jigdo jless jlint jpilot junit-freenet kakasi kdrill kfocus kon2 krb4 krb5 ksocrat lablgtk lam lesstif1-1 lineakconfig linpqa lirc lm-batmon lm-sensors libapache-mod-dav libax25 libbit-vector-perl libcap libcommoncpp2 libctl libdate-calc-perl libdbi-perl libgda2 libglpng libgnomedb libgpio libjconv liblog-agent-logger-perl liblog-agent-perl liblog-agent-rotate-perl libmng libnet-daemon-perl libnet-rawip-perl libplrpc-perl libpod-pom-perl libprelude libproc-process-perl libprpc-perl libquicktime librep libsdl-erlang libsigc++-1.1 libsigc++-1.2 libsigc++ libsmi libstroke libtabe libunicode libusb libxbase mailscanner makedev manderlbot mbrowse mdk medusa meshio mew mgetty midentd mii-diag mingw32-binutils mingw32 mixer.app mmenu mnogosearch mobilemesh mondo mosix motion mova mozilla-snapshot mozilla mp3blaster mp3info mpatrol mped mpqc mtools mtrack multi-gnome-terminal multiticker murasaki muse mwavem namazu2 ncpfs net-snmp netcast netjuke nictools-nopci nmap notifyme nte nvi-m17n oaf obexftp ocaml octave2.1 oftc-hybrid oo2c openafs-krb5 openafs opendchub opengate openh323gk openmash openmosix opensp openssl overkill pam pango1.0 parted passivetex pccts pdnsd peacock phaseshift phototk pike pike7.2 pike7.4 pilot-link pimppa pinball pkf plum pong poppassd postilion powertweak ppxp-applet ppxp progsreiserfs pronto ptex-bin pybliographer pymol python-4suite python-stats python-xml-0.6 python2.1 python2.2 python2.3 qemacs qhull qm qstat quadra quota radiusclient radiusd-livingston rblcheck rdtool read-edid realtimebattle remem rfb rplay rubyunit rumba-manifold rumba-utils rumbagui rumbaview samhain sanitizer scandetd scanmail scite scrollkeeper scsitools search-ccsb sg-utils sg3-utils shadow shapetools sidplay-base skkfep smail sml-mode sms-pl sn snort soap-lite socks4-server sonicmail sortmail soup soup2 sourcenav spass speech-tools speedy-cgi-perl spidermonkey spong squidguard squidtaild stegdetect stopafter superd sympa syscalltrack tclex tclx8.2 tclx8.3 tcpquota tdb tetrinetx tex-guy texfam tik tintin++ titrax tix8.1 tkisem tkpaint tkvnc tolua torch-examples tptime tramp tsocks ucd-snmp ucspi-proxy umodpack unixodbc usbmgr uw-imap vdkxdb vdkxdb2 verilog vflib2 vflib3 vgagamespack vipec vtcl w3cam webalizer webbase wine wings3d wmcdplay wmmon wmtime wwl xbvl xclass xdb xdvik-ja xemacs21 xevil xfce xfree86 xfree86v3 xfreecd xfs-xtt xirssi xitalk xkbset xlife xmacro xmms xnc xotcl xpa xpdf xpm xracer xscorch xsmc-calc xstroke xsysinfo zebra zmailer
