Re: Bug#1035904: dpkg currently warning about merged-usr systems (revisited)
Hi Sean, On 11/05/2023 03:59, Sean Whitton wrote: Hello, On Wed 10 May 2023 at 11:47PM +02, Ansgar wrote: Dear ctte, please consider overruling the dpkg maintainer to include the patch from #994388[1]. Currently dpkg contains code to emit the merged-/usr warning, that's dead code on Debian, but which becomes active when packages from the Debian archive are copied unmodified into derivatives. The heart of the issue is how dpkg is a native package. What we're talking about is not the Debian system, but the Debian archive as it exists independently of the Debian system. dpkg has an upstream existence that's independent of Debian, and it's perfectly legitimate for that version of dpkg to emit the warning. The problem here might be caused by how the Debian archive is implicitly being used to distribute upstream dpkg. This is not in itself a problem -- we distribute a lot of stuff in source packages that does not form part of the Debian system. But in this case, this distribution that's occurring might conflict with how Debian is seeking to provide a product not just to end users, but also to those building derivatives. One simple solution is for dpkg to become a non-native package, carrying Debian-specific patches to do things like remove the warning code. I think you're conflating two independent things. If you override the dpkg maintainer to remove that warning that occurs on derivatives, then anyone could NMU dpkg and the maintainer wouldn't introduce it back, effectively removing the warning from "dpkg upstream". OTOH if the dpkg maintainer switches to non-native packages, anyone could NMU it adding the change as a patch, however the maintainer will just NACK the NMU before or after it happens. So I don't see a problem with dpkg being native, just like e.g. apt is, and that won't magically solve the issue at hand. Cheers, Emilio
Re: [MBF] Obsoleting Source-Version substvar
On 10/07/16 02:16, Guillem Jover wrote:
> Hi!
>
> I'd like to obsolete the ${Source-Version} substvar, which has very
> misleading semantics, and has been deprecated since dpkg 1.13.19 in
> 2006-05-04. This currently emits warnings from various dpkg-dev
> scripts and from lintian.
>
>
>
> I'm attaching the prospective dd-list, and the template bug report. I'd
> like do the MBF in 1 or 2 weeks, and turn the warnings into errors in
> the first dpkg release after 1 or 2 months from now. I'm easy if people
> would like more or less time?
Sounds good to me.
Cheers,
Emilio
Re: Bug#768599: man-db: cycle found while processing triggers:
Control: reassign 768598 dpkg 1.17.21 Control: reassign 768600 dpkg 1.17.21 Control: forcemerge -1 768598 768600 Control: affects -1 man-db font-config readhead-fedora On 08/11/14 17:38, Guillem Jover wrote: Hi! On Sat, 2014-11-08 at 16:56:33 +, Colin Watson wrote: Control: reassign -1 dpkg 1.17.21 On Sat, Nov 08, 2014 at 04:05:17PM +, Holger Levsen wrote: package: man-db severity: serious x-debbugs-cc: debian-dpkg@lists.debian.org I'm not 100% sure the following issue is caused by man-db, please reassign appropriatly if it is not. https://jenkins.debian.net/job/chroot-installation_wheezy_install_education- networked_upgrade_to_jessie/2/console Setting up startpar (0.59-3) ... Installing new version of config file /etc/init/startpar-bridge.conf ... dpkg: cycle found while processing triggers: chain of packages whose triggers are or may be responsible: man-db -> man-db packages' pending triggers which are or may be unresolvable: man-db: /usr/share/man dpkg: error processing package man-db (--configure): triggers looping, abandoned Setting up sysvinit-utils (2.88dsf-57) ... Errors were encountered while processing: man-db E: Sub-process /usr/bin/dpkg returned an error code (1) This has got to be a dpkg bug. There's no good reason for a package not to be able to trigger itself, and this has worked for ages. That's because (according to the log), the man-db package being triggered (version 2.6.2-1) is the one still using the awaiting interest directive, which got switched to interest-noawait in 2.6.3-6. I'll have to add Breaks for any such packages. :/ But I'm not sure how much that might make the upgrade more difficult, as dpkg contains already many Breaks/Conflicts. Also font-config (#768598) / readahead-fedora (#768600). Emilio -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-dpkg-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: https://lists.debian.org/545e99f5.7070...@debian.org
Re: Bug#163666: debian-policy: Unclear result with [arch] and |
Greetings from this new -policy subscriber! Russ Allbery wrote: > @@ -4188,6 +4188,22 @@ Build-Depends-Indep: texinfo > Build-Depends: kernel-headers-2.2.10 [!hurd-i386], >hurd-dev [hurd-i386], gnumach-dev [hurd-i386] > > + requires kernel-headers-2.2.0 on all architectures ^ 2.2.10? Back to lurker mode, Emilio signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature
