Re: Bug#354674: What on earth?
On Sun, Apr 16, 2006 at 07:19:40PM +0200, Pierre HABOUZIT wrote: [...] Perhaps you're right on your comments about X.org 7.0 not being tested enough to avoid break, but perhpas few people cared about installing it when it was in experimental. Perhaps they are right on uploading packages to unstable, as THEY though packages were ready for so. But now packages are in unstable. So please, stop whining and offer all work you can, by actually fixing things or by shutting down. It is very childish to try to get a "Yes, you're right, we failed, we suck" from busy people. As many people working in Debian they tried to make their best at packaging X, and I am sure they are investing a lot of effort and time. And I am also sure that as they have "failed" in doing that without harm, they are the first trying to put more work to fix things ASAP. And they have even recognized their responsability! Almost every person using unstable has been hit by this, in one way or other, but I think that we should try to push in the same direction. Cheers, -- Jose Carlos Garcia Sogo [EMAIL PROTECTED] signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: Bug#354674: What on earth?
On Sun, Apr 16, 2006 at 10:52:21AM -0400, David Nusinow wrote: > I have yet to file bugs against other packages that I've affected because I > haven't had time. This is a serious problem, but I have hundreds of > packages to actively look after during this transition and I'd appreciate > any sort of help that can be offered. > Anyway, I'm going to continue to work hard on this. If you want to help dig > us out of it, I'll welcome any patches you care to submit that are up to > your standards of quality. Until then though, feel free to kiss my ass. Let's make this a little more concrete: http://ftp-master.debian.org/~vorlon/x11-common-conflicts-unstable.txt That page is the list of all the packages in unstable that x11-common had to add conflicts for as a result of the /usr/X11R6/bin transition. Most of these packages will need patches created, and bugs filed, for being fixed to use /usr/bin and other corresponding directories outside of /usr/X11R6. If people want to chip in and help with this, that would be keen. -- Steve Langasek Give me a lever long enough and a Free OS Debian Developer to set it on, and I can move the world. [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.debian.org/ signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: Bug#354674: What on earth?
su, 2006-04-16 kello 22:25 +0200, Gabor Gombas kirjoitti: > So, [- - -] what are _YOUR_ excuses for > not testing the transition when it was still in experimental? And if you > did not do that, what are you complaining about? I like this attitude: you either help, or you shut up. Attacking people because they made a mistake and are busy fixing it is not productive. We're together in this chaotic beauty called the Debian Project, and when there is a problem, it's *our* problem. Not the X maintainers' problem, not the release managers' problem, but all our problem. We all either work to help fix it, or at least we stand silently aside so as not to make things worse. Talk is cheap. Whines are practically free. -- One does not see anything until one sees its beauty. -- O.W. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Bug#354674: What on earth?
On Sun, Apr 16, 2006 at 07:19:40PM +0200, Pierre HABOUZIT wrote: > Give me a break. For one single package, it's already quite penible to > use experimental (to avoid to pull every single experimental package, > you have to edit your /etc/apt/preferences, and stuff like that), it's > not imagineable that users will use experimental for that reason, Yes, they do. It might be too complicated for you, oh Mighty Debian Developer, but us mere mortals just follow the examples in apt_preferences(5) and that works for us. I installed X.org 7.0 from experimental on i386 about a week or two before it was uploaded to unstable, and expect some minor adjustment it worked just fine. I installed it on AMD64 after it was uploaded to unstable, and apart from a missing package it worked just fine. In fact, considering the dozens of packages affected, I expected _MUCH_ more breakage than I actually encountered. > because with the myriad of libraries that X comes with, either you pull > all experimental (who is insane enough to only think of doing that ?) Oh, so the Mighty Debian Developers consider Debian users who are willing to test such big changes as the X transition insane? This is just the attitude users LOVE about Debian Developers... > or edit a 645-line long /etc/apt/preferences, which nobody will want > to do either. This was the line when I tought I can not resist replying to your mail. If you show so much incompetence about the product you are supposed to be developing in such a short sentence, then I'd seriously consider giving up being a DD if I were you. > I honnestly think things have been rushed[3] too much, as many of the > problems that have been raised, could have been found, warned, or worked > around in early packaging stages (meaning before an upload). So, apart from the incompetence you showed, what are _YOUR_ excuses for not testing the transition when it was still in experimental? And if you did not do that, what are you complaining about? Gabor -- - MTA SZTAKI Computer and Automation Research Institute Hungarian Academy of Sciences - signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: Bug#354674: What on earth?
On Sun, Apr 16, 2006 at 07:19:40PM +0200, Pierre HABOUZIT wrote: > I'm complaining because *you* created the huge load of bugs you have > to cope with, and a lot of other you don't warn other packagers about > (what pissed me, and made me write my previous mail is yet-another-RC > bug because of X we received on kdm recently...). And also in your > answer to me, you ask to be sanctified because you are currently in a > hurry to fix them ? In the interests of science, I dived into the debian-qt-kde archives[0]. I count: * 'Still happening?' pings from Adam Porter: 19. + Responses to same: 14. + Total: 33. * Testing migration mails: 9. * Spam: 7. * X-related bugs you were warned about via d-d-a: 2. * X-related bugs you weren't warned about via d-d-a: 2. * Other BTS: I stopped counting. I have better things to do. Again, if you're going to make outlandish claims in the name of chastising others, for god's sake, at least have the decency to be *right*. 'Oh my god, I'm drowning in bugs', indeed, Daniel [0]: http://lists.debian.org/debian-qt-kde/2006/04/threads.html signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: Bug#354674: What on earth?
On Sun, Apr 16, 2006 at 07:19:40PM +0200, Pierre HABOUZIT wrote: > In-Reply-To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > On Sun, Apr 16, 2006 at 10:52:21AM -0400, David Nusinow wrote: > > I'd like for you to back this claim up. So far I've fixed dozens of bugs > > over the course of the past week at great personal and professional cost of > > my time, energy, and health. And I plan to keep whittling away at the bugs > > until the transition is as clean as I can possibly make it. > > well, like said, it's a bit late for that. And about your bug load, > let me say it loud clear: the current load you are experiencing was > created by your way to package X.org 7.0, not anticipating any of the > problems. I won't say your current rate of bug fixing isn't remarkable > outside from the current contexte. But please, when someone run into a > wall, nobody will think that his survival is a remarkable thing. It's a bit late to back your claims up? Come on man, lay off the guy. David made a couple of mistakes in handling X in Debian. So did I. I made a ton more handling X outside of Debian. So what? He's apologised *repeatedly* for what he feels he needs to apologise for. Just move the hell on and stop being such a dick. > > I communicated, to the best of my knowledge, what the transition meant in > > the past [0]. I wasn't aware that I would be breaking a large amount of > > packages until after I uploaded to unstable. These packages have largely > > been in use in Ubuntu for several months already. They have been in > > experimental for several months as well, during which time I fixed every > > bug that came in about them. I communicated with the release team what my > > plans were at all stages, and while I didn't realize the scope of the > > disruption, I did my absolute best to keep everyone involved informed. > > Every single change I've done to these packages has been documented on > > debian-x via the svn commits, so everyone could see what I've been doing if > > they cared to look. > > I'm shocked that you didn't anticipate *any* of the problems you ran > into. after all, you've broken : *dm, fonts, made FTBFS a lot of > programs linking against xlibs, ... That looks to me like beeing an > reasonnably complete coverage of the things X.org is supposed to > achieve. The affirmation "This worked fine in ubuntu" looks like a very > loose quality quality test for a first upload of a totally new layout of > an X server. It worked fine in Ubuntu, across a couple of releases. It worked fine in experimental -- where I notice you haven't been testing. If you're concerned about xlibs-dev, maybe you should try subscribing to this list called debian-devel-announce? There were *two* posts to d-d-a about xlibs-dev, including a co-ordinated mass bug (and patch!) filing. I thought your complaint was both annoying and petty in the first place, but now you're provably wrong, to boot. > > Anyway, I'm going to continue to work hard on this. If you want to help dig > > us out of it, I'll welcome any patches you care to submit that are up to > > your standards of quality. > > I'm already fixing a huge load of RC bugs doing NMU to clean packages > that are in a loosy shape since a lot of time, and that does not seem to > have an active enough maintainer. I hope X.org does not qualify yet to > those criteriums. Are you seriously suggesting that you would be a better X maintainer than David, assisted by his team? Are you suggesting that, under the circumstances, you could've done a better job with X11R7? Or (and I suspect this is more likely) are you just saying this because you like flaming people into the ground on mailing lists, for no apparent reason? If you want to do something productive[0], how about you go and fix some of these issues, instead of whining on debian-devel? > In-Reply-To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > > - /usr/X11R6/bin/X disapearing broke login managers (gdm, kdm) > > > > This is being rectified, as a perfunctory glance at -x will tell you. > > Are you serious ? Do you read debian-glibc@ each time you upload a > package ? please, if something has te be known related to a migration, > it has to come from the team that launched that migration. It's not to > the others developpers to go read -x, it's up to you to inform them. It's not as much a migration issue as a bug. /usr/X11R6/bin should be a symlink to /usr/bin. Right now, in *some* cases, that doesn't happen. In most cases, it does. I don't expect to get personalised updates from seb128 every time Metacity introduces some bug which results in focus behaving very weirdly. I just expect that, in due course, the bug will get fixed and that the fix will work its way into unstable. If this is a little too much for you, may I suggest the testing branch? It's much less ... well ... unstable. > So I really expect that in a really near future I'll hear from you (as > a team member of the QT-KDE team that packages kdm), that gdm maintainer > will
Re: Bug#354674: What on earth?
In-Reply-To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> On Sun, Apr 16, 2006 at 10:52:21AM -0400, David Nusinow wrote: > As for the build-depends, pbuilder is, as far as I've been able to > understand it, completely incapable of handling such a massive beast as > this. You can't point it easily at a custom repository in order to have it > pull from there. If this has changed recently, I'd love to hear it, but > when I was investigating this during the development of the packages I was > unable to do it. Furthermore, the packages I pulled were autobuilding just > fine on Ubuntu, so I had little reason to believe that they didn't have > proper build-depends for Debian. Indeed, very few of the packages ftbfs'ed, > and most of these were fixed within hours of being reported. AFAICT, it's easy to achieve. See [1]. bindmount your /var/cache/pbuilder/results (or the place where you put your built packages) e.g. in /mnt/results/. Also add a hookscript starting with D that looks like: #!/bin/sh dpkg-scanpackages /mnt/results /dev/null > /mnt/results/Packages echo "file:///mnt/results ./" >> /etc/apt/sources.list apt-get update and I think you are done. I reckon this was not in pbuilder(8) but in the online user doc. > > I can predict that the Xorg 7.0 will be the messiest debian will have to > > face in years, because everything is done in a hurry, and that each new > > uploads adds as many bugs (if not twice as many) as it solves. > > I'd like for you to back this claim up. So far I've fixed dozens of bugs > over the course of the past week at great personal and professional cost of > my time, energy, and health. And I plan to keep whittling away at the bugs > until the transition is as clean as I can possibly make it. well, like said, it's a bit late for that. And about your bug load, let me say it loud clear: the current load you are experiencing was created by your way to package X.org 7.0, not anticipating any of the problems. I won't say your current rate of bug fixing isn't remarkable outside from the current contexte. But please, when someone run into a wall, nobody will think that his survival is a remarkable thing. > > Could please the XSF communicate, and announce what that damn transition > > implies for *everybody*, instead of letting anybody finds out that > > their package is broken. I suggest [1] as a very good template for what > > communicating about a transition means. > > I communicated, to the best of my knowledge, what the transition meant in > the past [0]. I wasn't aware that I would be breaking a large amount of > packages until after I uploaded to unstable. These packages have largely > been in use in Ubuntu for several months already. They have been in > experimental for several months as well, during which time I fixed every > bug that came in about them. I communicated with the release team what my > plans were at all stages, and while I didn't realize the scope of the > disruption, I did my absolute best to keep everyone involved informed. > Every single change I've done to these packages has been documented on > debian-x via the svn commits, so everyone could see what I've been doing if > they cared to look. I'm shocked that you didn't anticipate *any* of the problems you ran into. after all, you've broken : *dm, fonts, made FTBFS a lot of programs linking against xlibs, ... That looks to me like beeing an reasonnably complete coverage of the things X.org is supposed to achieve. The affirmation "This worked fine in ubuntu" looks like a very loose quality quality test for a first upload of a totally new layout of an X server. > I have yet to file bugs against other packages that I've affected because I > haven't had time. [...] that should have been done *before* any of your moves. And that's exactly the RM's point, and mine also. > Anyway, I'm going to continue to work hard on this. If you want to help dig > us out of it, I'll welcome any patches you care to submit that are up to > your standards of quality. I'm already fixing a huge load of RC bugs doing NMU to clean packages that are in a loosy shape since a lot of time, and that does not seem to have an active enough maintainer. I hope X.org does not qualify yet to those criteriums. > Until then though, feel free to kiss my ass. You're welcome. [1] http://www.netfort.gr.jp/~dancer/software/pbuilder-doc/pbuilder-doc.html#id267034 In-Reply-To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > - /usr/X11R6/bin/X disapearing broke login managers (gdm, kdm) > > This is being rectified, as a perfunctory glance at -x will tell you. Are you serious ? Do you read debian-glibc@ each time you upload a package ? please, if something has te be known related to a migration, it has to come from the team that launched that migration. It's not to the others developpers to go read -x, it's up to you to inform them. So I really expect that in a really near future I'll hear from you (as a team member of the QT-KDE team that packages kdm),
Re: Bug#354674: What on earth?
On Sun, Apr 16, 2006 at 10:52:21AM -0400, David Nusinow wrote: > As for the build-depends, pbuilder is, as far as I've been able to > understand it, completely incapable of handling such a massive beast as > this. You can't point it easily at a custom repository in order to have it > pull from there. If this has changed recently, I'd love to hear it, but > when I was investigating this during the development of the packages I was > unable to do it. Furthermore, the packages I pulled were autobuilding just > fine on Ubuntu, so I had little reason to believe that they didn't have > proper build-depends for Debian. Indeed, very few of the packages ftbfs'ed, > and most of these were fixed within hours of being reported. I should point out that the FTBFSing packages were ones that were repackaged from the ground up to be more sensible, not pure imports from Ubuntu. That being said, I agree with the thrust of David's mail. And, on my behalf, apologise to the release team for any disruption incurred to Etch. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Bug#354674: What on earth?
On Sun, Apr 16, 2006 at 04:31:10PM +0200, Pierre Habouzit wrote: > - /usr/X11R6/bin/X disapearing broke login managers (gdm, kdm) > - fonts transition was unanounced and users have either : > * only non transitionned fonts if their xorg.conf was modified > * only xorg ones if they use dexconf >that's a mess. > - a lot of build depends were missing, something that the first build >on autobuilders revealed, which makes me wonder if the XSF knows >about pbuilder and friends ? You're right about the xfonts issue. I thought we had compatibility symlinks in place to deal with this. I was wrong. I'm sorry. As for the build-depends, pbuilder is, as far as I've been able to understand it, completely incapable of handling such a massive beast as this. You can't point it easily at a custom repository in order to have it pull from there. If this has changed recently, I'd love to hear it, but when I was investigating this during the development of the packages I was unable to do it. Furthermore, the packages I pulled were autobuilding just fine on Ubuntu, so I had little reason to believe that they didn't have proper build-depends for Debian. Indeed, very few of the packages ftbfs'ed, and most of these were fixed within hours of being reported. > Well, knowing to apology is good, but knowing how to prepare a > transition is also needed. I just can quote steve on this : > > ? So far I'm very unimpressed with the resultant bug count from the > ? Xorg 7 transition. > > I can predict that the Xorg 7.0 will be the messiest debian will have to > face in years, because everything is done in a hurry, and that each new > uploads adds as many bugs (if not twice as many) as it solves. I'd like for you to back this claim up. So far I've fixed dozens of bugs over the course of the past week at great personal and professional cost of my time, energy, and health. And I plan to keep whittling away at the bugs until the transition is as clean as I can possibly make it. But to say that I'm introducing more bugs than I'm fixing is insulting. > So maybe it's now time to calm down the upload rate (yeah unstable is > broken, but it's too late for that anyway, and after all it's not > called unstable for nothing), let's have some communication to have it > fixed, instead of pile of clumsy patches. I'm fixing bugs as fast as I can because that's what's needed right now. I'm willing to accidentally slip in a clumsy upload if it'll lead to a proper fix over the course of another day, especially if it allows me to fix 4 other bugs in the time frame I spent exhaustively testing every possibility. > Could please the XSF communicate, and announce what that damn transition > implies for *everybody*, instead of letting anybody finds out that > their package is broken. I suggest [1] as a very good template for what > communicating about a transition means. I communicated, to the best of my knowledge, what the transition meant in the past [0]. I wasn't aware that I would be breaking a large amount of packages until after I uploaded to unstable. These packages have largely been in use in Ubuntu for several months already. They have been in experimental for several months as well, during which time I fixed every bug that came in about them. I communicated with the release team what my plans were at all stages, and while I didn't realize the scope of the disruption, I did my absolute best to keep everyone involved informed. Every single change I've done to these packages has been documented on debian-x via the svn commits, so everyone could see what I've been doing if they cared to look. I have yet to file bugs against other packages that I've affected because I haven't had time. This is a serious problem, but I have hundreds of packages to actively look after during this transition and I'd appreciate any sort of help that can be offered. Anyway, I'm going to continue to work hard on this. If you want to help dig us out of it, I'll welcome any patches you care to submit that are up to your standards of quality. Until then though, feel free to kiss my ass. - David Nusinow -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Bug#354674: What on earth?
On Sun, Apr 16, 2006 at 04:31:10PM +0200, Pierre Habouzit wrote: > I welcome the fact that you bear your responsabilities, that's a quality > fewer of us have. Though, the .la problem is not the sole one the > modular Xorg raised. > > - /usr/X11R6/bin/X disapearing broke login managers (gdm, kdm) This is being rectified, as a perfunctory glance at -x will tell you. > - fonts transition was unanounced and users have either : > * only non transitionned fonts if their xorg.conf was modified > * only xorg ones if they use dexconf >that's a mess. This is being rectified. > - a lot of build depends were missing, something that the first build >on autobuilders revealed, which makes me wonder if the XSF knows >about pbuilder and friends ? This is being rectified, obviously, but I'm sure the people doing the packaging appreciate your slight at their skills. > Well, knowing to apology is good, but knowing how to prepare a > transition is also needed. I just can quote steve on this : > > » So far I'm very unimpressed with the resultant bug count from the > » Xorg 7 transition. > > I can predict that the Xorg 7.0 will be the messiest debian will have to > face in years, because everything is done in a hurry, and that each new > uploads adds as many bugs (if not twice as many) as it solves. > > So maybe it's now time to calm down the upload rate (yeah unstable is > broken, but it's too late for that anyway, and after all it's not > called unstable for nothing), let's have some communication to have it > fixed, instead of pile of clumsy patches. So, let me get this straight: on one hand you're complaining about bugs, and on the other hand, you're complaining about bugs being fixed? The workload of the XSF members getting things fixed is very admirable. > Could please the XSF communicate, and announce what that damn transition > implies for *everybody*, instead of letting anybody finds out that > their package is broken. I suggest [1] as a very good template for what > communicating about a transition means. Thanks a lot for your help. David has posted a couple of messages on debian-devel-announce discussing the transition (including xlibs-dev), and what it means for everyone. Most of the transition was co-ordinated in excruciating detail, including a long time in experimental where testing failed to uncover these sorts of problems. The rest are purely transitive. You don't need a plan to tell you that fonts are being migrated, that Build-Depends are being added as they're being caught, or that the /usr/X11R6/bin situation is nearly totally fixed. This is unstable. Sometimes the name rings true. With regards the .la files: mea culpa. I was partially unaware of the full extent of the damage, and partially unaware that the release team considered it such a problem. If you really don't like it, wait a few days until the transition blows over and the coast is clear. It's one of the biggest transitions Debian has had, and sometimes the problems aren't always clear. (Hence the delay in experimental, waiting for testers.) Daniel signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: Bug#354674: What on earth?
Le Ven 14 Avril 2006 01:58, David Nusinow a écrit : > On Thu, Apr 13, 2006 at 07:09:55PM -0400, Adam C Powell IV wrote: > > *Think* for a moment about the consequences. This is not a simple > > rebuild, this is a serious problem. > > I agree and I take full responsibility for the issue. I'm sorry for > the trouble. I'm fully willing to put back the .la files on request > from the release team, who I should definitely have coordinated with > beforehand. Note that I would have done so if I'd realized the > magnitude of the problem, and not doing so was entirely my error. > > - David Nusinow I welcome the fact that you bear your responsabilities, that's a quality fewer of us have. Though, the .la problem is not the sole one the modular Xorg raised. - /usr/X11R6/bin/X disapearing broke login managers (gdm, kdm) - fonts transition was unanounced and users have either : * only non transitionned fonts if their xorg.conf was modified * only xorg ones if they use dexconf that's a mess. - a lot of build depends were missing, something that the first build on autobuilders revealed, which makes me wonder if the XSF knows about pbuilder and friends ? Well, knowing to apology is good, but knowing how to prepare a transition is also needed. I just can quote steve on this : » So far I'm very unimpressed with the resultant bug count from the » Xorg 7 transition. I can predict that the Xorg 7.0 will be the messiest debian will have to face in years, because everything is done in a hurry, and that each new uploads adds as many bugs (if not twice as many) as it solves. So maybe it's now time to calm down the upload rate (yeah unstable is broken, but it's too late for that anyway, and after all it's not called unstable for nothing), let's have some communication to have it fixed, instead of pile of clumsy patches. Could please the XSF communicate, and announce what that damn transition implies for *everybody*, instead of letting anybody finds out that their package is broken. I suggest [1] as a very good template for what communicating about a transition means. best regards, [1] http://lists.debian.org/debian-devel-announce/2005/07/msg1.html -- ·O· Pierre Habouzit ··O[EMAIL PROTECTED] OOOhttp://www.madism.org pgpRFolkhox8u.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: Bug#354674: What on earth?
On Thu, 13 Apr 2006 19:58:05 -0400, David Nusinow <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >I agree and I take full responsibility for the issue. I'm sorry for the >trouble. I'm fully willing to put back the .la files on request from the >release team, who I should definitely have coordinated with beforehand. >Note that I would have done so if I'd realized the magnitude of the >problem, and not doing so was entirely my error. Kudos for that. Maintainers, hear, hear! This is communication! David, very well done. Please keep up your excellent work. Greetings Marc -- -- !! No courtesy copies, please !! - Marc Haber | " Questions are the | Mailadresse im Header Mannheim, Germany | Beginning of Wisdom " | http://www.zugschlus.de/ Nordisch by Nature | Lt. Worf, TNG "Rightful Heir" | Fon: *49 621 72739834
Re: Bug#354674: What on earth?
On Thu, Apr 13, 2006 at 08:25:55PM -0400, Adam C Powell IV wrote: > On Thu, 2006-04-13 at 19:58 -0400, David Nusinow wrote: > > On Thu, Apr 13, 2006 at 07:09:55PM -0400, Adam C Powell IV wrote: > > > *Think* for a moment about the consequences. This is not a simple > > > rebuild, this is a serious problem. > > I agree and I take full responsibility for the issue. I'm sorry for the > > trouble. I'm fully willing to put back the .la files on request from the > > release team, who I should definitely have coordinated with beforehand. > > Note that I would have done so if I'd realized the magnitude of the > > problem, and not doing so was entirely my error. > Wow. Thank you. This would help in the short term, though I suspect > the damage is done and the other packages are "fixing" their "bugs" at > this point. I agree that the release team should decide. You won't get any argument from the release team about whether it's ok for .la files to be dropped from packages, in cases where the library also integrates with pkg-config. In addition to pkg-config being much easier to integrate with plain Makefiles, its dependency handling is much better able to cope with changes to library relationships. It's just the timing that becomes an issue. -- Steve Langasek Give me a lever long enough and a Free OS Debian Developer to set it on, and I can move the world. [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.debian.org/ signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: Bug#354674: What on earth?
On Thu, 2006-04-13 at 19:58 -0400, David Nusinow wrote: > On Thu, Apr 13, 2006 at 07:09:55PM -0400, Adam C Powell IV wrote: > > *Think* for a moment about the consequences. This is not a simple > > rebuild, this is a serious problem. > > I agree and I take full responsibility for the issue. I'm sorry for the > trouble. I'm fully willing to put back the .la files on request from the > release team, who I should definitely have coordinated with beforehand. > Note that I would have done so if I'd realized the magnitude of the > problem, and not doing so was entirely my error. Wow. Thank you. This would help in the short term, though I suspect the damage is done and the other packages are "fixing" their "bugs" at this point. I agree that the release team should decide. I hope such problems can be avoided in the future. Cheers, -Adam -- GPG fingerprint: D54D 1AEE B11C CE9B A02B C5DD 526F 01E8 564E E4B6 Welcome to the best software in the world today cafe! http://www.take6.com/albums/greatesthits.html -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Bug#354674: What on earth?
On Thu, 2006-04-13 at 19:12 +0300, Daniel Stone wrote:
> On Thu, Apr 13, 2006 at 11:12:06AM -0400, Adam C Powell IV wrote:
> > Please tell me if I have this right:
> > * You don't like .la files
>
> Yes.
>
> > * So you're unilaterally removing them from a core package
> > (libxcursor) with dozens of reverse-depends, breaking all of
> > them
>
> Yes.
>
> > * Even though they're a years-old and very well established
> > technology
>
> .la files? I wouldn't call them 'very well established'.
Okay, then 'widespread', as is evident from the number of broken
packages.
> > * Which upstream libtool has not yet decided to eliminate ("It's
> > already under discussion")
>
> And X.Org upstream are currently seriously discussing whether or not to
> eliminate libtool, at which point you get broken away. This, believe it
> or not, a) improves portability, and b) makes you immune to further
> changes.
Okay, I misunderstood, s/libtool/Xorg/. Even so, what "further
changes"? There are no further changes yet, there are merely
discussions. This doesn't change that you acted unilaterally.
> > * And which has not been discussed on debian-devel or any other
> > Debian list as far as I can tell (Google search).
>
> Yes.
This is the main problem. In numerous other transitions, from udev/hal
to C++, we had fair warning and could coordinate release schedules. See
Steve's post.
> > Can you really be serious?
>
> Yes.
>
> > For example, if the maintainer of GLib decides (s)he doesn't like the
> > way it handles modules, and upstream *might* at some point change the
> > behavior, is that alone enough justification to change it and break all
> > of its dozens of reverse-depending packages?
>
> If the dependent packages can be fixed with a rebuild, and the reason is
> solid, rather than, 'I'm bored'? Yes.
So I'm supposed to rebuild all of the dependencies between my package
and libxcursor, like multiple GNOME and KDE libraries (GNOME in my
case), just to build my package? And then what? Upload it? I can't,
because those intermediate libs are broken in unstable, so it won't
autobuild.
And who's to say the interfaces won't change before the next upload of
those intermediates? For example, GNOME is in the middle of its
2.12-2.14 transition, with dozens of packages in flight from alioth via
experimental. It would *really* have helped if you had let them know of
these plans *before* they started uploading 2.14 packages.
Now everybody needs to wait while the maintainers of those packages
build and upload. In the correct order. Regardless of other release
plans. With no notice.
*Think* for a moment about the consequences. This is not a simple
rebuild, this is a serious problem.
> Is a rebuild really that phenomenally onerous for you? In the time
> spent arguing this point, tons of packages could've been simply rebuilt.
> I don't see where the problem lies, unless you happen to enjoy random
> flamebait more than actual productive work.
Flamebait? Well, if you consider discussions on stranding a large
fraction of Debian's 1000 part-time volunteer developers without the
ability to build their packages in unstable to be "random flamebait", I
really can't help you.
Regards,
-Adam
--
GPG fingerprint: D54D 1AEE B11C CE9B A02B C5DD 526F 01E8 564E E4B6
Welcome to the best software in the world today cafe!
http://www.take6.com/albums/greatesthits.html
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Bug#354674: What on earth?
On Thu, Apr 13, 2006 at 07:58:05PM -0400, David Nusinow wrote: > On Thu, Apr 13, 2006 at 07:09:55PM -0400, Adam C Powell IV wrote: > > *Think* for a moment about the consequences. This is not a simple > > rebuild, this is a serious problem. > > I agree and I take full responsibility for the issue. I'm sorry for the > trouble. I'm fully willing to put back the .la files on request from the > release team, who I should definitely have coordinated with beforehand. > Note that I would have done so if I'd realized the magnitude of the > problem, and not doing so was entirely my error. And this deserves applause. Recognizing errors, or lack of comunnication due to one, and showing a positive attitude is something that has to be more spread on this project. David, Daniel and other X team guys, my thanks for your great work, effort and positive attitude. -- Jose Carlos Garcia Sogo [EMAIL PROTECTED] signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: Bug#354674: What on earth?
On Thu, Apr 13, 2006 at 07:09:55PM -0400, Adam C Powell IV wrote: > *Think* for a moment about the consequences. This is not a simple > rebuild, this is a serious problem. I agree and I take full responsibility for the issue. I'm sorry for the trouble. I'm fully willing to put back the .la files on request from the release team, who I should definitely have coordinated with beforehand. Note that I would have done so if I'd realized the magnitude of the problem, and not doing so was entirely my error. - David Nusinow -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Bug#354674: What on earth?
On Thu, Apr 13, 2006 at 07:12:48PM +0300, Daniel Stone wrote: > Is a rebuild really that phenomenally onerous for you? In the time > spent arguing this point, tons of packages could've been simply rebuilt. > I don't see where the problem lies, unless you happen to enjoy random > flamebait more than actual productive work. The problem is not rebuilding, the problem is having several dozen other packages completely blindsided by this change *with no coordination*. The Xorg 7.0 transition was presented to the release team as "no big deal, just splitting the package". Instead, it's leaving half the packages in the build queue unbuildable because of disruptive changes that no one thought worth mentioning. I agree with the principle of dropping .la files in cases where .pc files are available as a better substitute, but not without *coordinating* with people. The repeated statements from the release team that library changes should be coordinated aren't some whim of those wacky RMs that should be ignored; keeping a handle on the disruptive changes going into unstable is essential if we're going to keep the announced release schedule. So far I'm very unimpressed with the resultant bug count from the Xorg 7 transition. -- Steve Langasek Give me a lever long enough and a Free OS Debian Developer to set it on, and I can move the world. [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.debian.org/ signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: Bug#354674: What on earth?
On Thu, Apr 13, 2006 at 11:12:06AM -0400, Adam C Powell IV wrote:
> Please tell me if I have this right:
> * You don't like .la files
Yes.
> * So you're unilaterally removing them from a core package
> (libxcursor) with dozens of reverse-depends, breaking all of
> them
Yes.
> * Even though they're a years-old and very well established
> technology
.la files? I wouldn't call them 'very well established'.
> * Which upstream libtool has not yet decided to eliminate ("It's
> already under discussion")
And X.Org upstream are currently seriously discussing whether or not to
eliminate libtool, at which point you get broken away. This, believe it
or not, a) improves portability, and b) makes you immune to further
changes.
> * And which has not been discussed on debian-devel or any other
> Debian list as far as I can tell (Google search).
Yes.
> Can you really be serious?
Yes.
> For example, if the maintainer of GLib decides (s)he doesn't like the
> way it handles modules, and upstream *might* at some point change the
> behavior, is that alone enough justification to change it and break all
> of its dozens of reverse-depending packages?
If the dependent packages can be fixed with a rebuild, and the reason is
solid, rather than, 'I'm bored'? Yes.
Is a rebuild really that phenomenally onerous for you? In the time
spent arguing this point, tons of packages could've been simply rebuilt.
I don't see where the problem lies, unless you happen to enjoy random
flamebait more than actual productive work.
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
