Re: libcwd: one or two packages?
On Fri, 11 Jan 2008, Carlo Wood wrote: As is described in URL REMOVED/libpkg-guide.html a shared library should exist of two (binary) packages: libfooX and libfoo-dev. However, the argumentation of that rule is based on the assumption that there exist other packages that link against those libraries. This is not the case for libcwd. Consider the following facts: - No application (or library) is linked against libcwd and then distributed: there will never exist (binary) packages that link against libcwd. If nothing links against a library ever, then there's no point in distributing it. If something does, then this isn't much of a fact, since there will exist binaries which are linked against libcwd, and making those binaries instabuggy is suboptimal. - Libcwd itself makes sure that an application that was compiled with libcwd version x.y.z, will also only be used (runtime linked) with version x.y.z (if that is not the case, a message is printed and the application core dumps on purpose). In otherwords, logic dictates that there will be only a single (binary) package for libcwd. That means that any new version of libcwd will automatically make any packages (or at least, any user-compiled packages) which use it instabuggy. Why not use a proper set of sonames for the library and do proper versioning so people who want to use your library can continue using it even when a new version is released? Don Armstrong -- There is no mechanical problem so difficult that it cannot be solved by brute strength and ignorance. -- William's Law http://www.donarmstrong.com http://rzlab.ucr.edu -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: libcwd: one or two packages?
On Fri, Jan 11, 2008 at 01:45:06PM -0800, Don Armstrong wrote: - No application (or library) is linked against libcwd and then distributed: there will never exist (binary) packages that link against libcwd. If nothing links against a library ever, then there's no point in distributing it. That is correct. But I didn't say that nothing links with it. I said that there will never be binary packages that link against it (at least, that wouldn't make sense). If something does, then this isn't much of a fact, since there will exist binaries which are linked against libcwd, and making those binaries instabuggy is suboptimal. Those binary will be temporary executables under development, compiled in the development tree of the maintainer/developer with 'make'. This will not be buggy after on such a machine libcwd would be upgraded - it would just require a recompile (run 'make' again). Since such application are constantly recompiled anyway, I think that the argument that the developer can re-run his application under-development five minutes longer before doing a recompile is an argument at all. - Libcwd itself makes sure that an application that was compiled with libcwd version x.y.z, will also only be used (runtime linked) with version x.y.z (if that is not the case, a message is printed and the application core dumps on purpose). In otherwords, logic dictates that there will be only a single (binary) package for libcwd. That means that any new version of libcwd will automatically make any packages (or at least, any user-compiled packages) which use it instabuggy. You already said that, see above. Why not use a proper set of sonames for the library and do proper versioning so people who want to use your library can continue using it even when a new version is released? Because that makes no sense in this case. The usage cycle of libcwd is as follows: 1) (re)install libcwd 2) Add support for libcwd to code (if not already done) 3) Run 'make' 4) Test application 5) Make changes to application 6) Go to either 1 or 3 while developing, otherwise 7) Turn off debugging 8) Recompile without libcwd 9) Distribute application The loop to 1 would be -say- every few months at most. What you are proposing, to distribute a separate package for libcwd would ONLY be so that the developer can skip 3, having reinstalled libcwd. The benefit of that, especially since the result would be a COREDUMP (see below*), OR I'd have to release a new NAME every release, stands completely in the shadow of the confusion that the very existance of a binary package would give rise to: namely, that developers think they can (should) write applications that are still linked against libcwd when distributed in binary form! -- Carlo Wood [EMAIL PROTECTED] *) COREDUMP : check_configuration: This version of libcwd does not match the version of libcwd/config.h! Are your paths correct? Did you recently upgrade libcwd and forgot to recompile this application? -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: libcwd: one or two packages?
My mail, posted to this list on Jan 8, is ALSO lost... The subject was libcwd: one or two packages?. The Message-ID was [EMAIL PROTECTED] (I'm replying to a local CC now). Can someone tell me what is going on? Why did both posts that I mailed to this list not appear on the list? This is tiresome - on one hand this list generates like 90% of all spam that I get, and on the other hand my mails are /dev/null-ed :/. May I suggest to just refuse all mails from non-subscribers, and always allow all posts by subscribers? -- Carlo Wood [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: libcwd: one or two packages?
On 09/01/2008, Carlo Wood wrote: My mail, posted to this list on Jan 8, is ALSO lost... The subject was libcwd: one or two packages?. The Message-ID was [EMAIL PROTECTED] (I'm replying to a local CC now). Can someone tell me what is going on? Why did both posts that I mailed to this list not appear on the list? http://lists.debian.org/debian-project/2008/01/msg00011.html http://lists.debian.org/debian-project/2008/01/msg00013.html Note that you can request to be whitelisted. See “whitelist” on http://www.debian.org/MailingLists/subscribe This is tiresome - on one hand this list generates like 90% of all spam that I get, and on the other hand my mails are /dev/null-ed :/. May I suggest to just refuse all mails from non-subscribers, and always allow all posts by subscribers? Hopefully things will get better. Hard moderations rules are quite inconvenient anyway (like you have one or two questions to ask on a list, and have to temporary subscribe, instead of setting Reply-To/asking people to keep you in Cc in their replies). Cheers, -- Cyril Brulebois pgpc4q4RCZ8xf.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: libcwd: one or two packages?
On Wed, Jan 09, 2008 at 09:56:43PM +0100, Cyril Brulebois wrote: Hopefully things will get better. Hard moderations rules are quite inconvenient anyway (like you have one or two questions to ask on a list, and have to temporary subscribe, instead of setting Reply-To/asking people to keep you in Cc in their replies). The way it is now, MY spam filters assign a value of +24 to mail from debian-mentors@lists.debian.org as auto white list, because the ammount of average spam is SO freaking high, that basically it assumes everything is... That can't be a good thing. (My threshold for spam +5). The only reason I see this mail is because it has 'libcwd' in the Subject line :p I still don't understand why my mail disappeared though, it doesn't contain anything NEAR spammy content. Anyway, before I post again, I suppose I need to be added to a white list for [EMAIL PROTECTED] Please? -- Carlo Wood [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: libcwd: one or two packages?
Hallo! Du (Carlo Wood) hast geschrieben: [ftr again: the outburst of spam yesterday happened accidently and should be fixed now.] I still don't understand why my mail disappeared though, it doesn't contain anything NEAR spammy content. i can't find anything containing your mailadress in our dropboxes, so if it happens again, that mail from you doesn't go through to a list, check with the Listarchive and if it isn't there after two hours, send us a message: To enable us investigating errors or problems you should provide us with more information. Helpful would be: (we don't need all, provide as much as possible) * the IP, * the Time (including timezone), * the Message-Id, * the Adresses you sent from and to, * maybe some more things that could be related with that problem. We maintain a system with more than 15 subscribers which gets and sends a lot more than 100 Mails a day, without that information we have no chance to find out what went wrong. Anyway, before I post again, I suppose I need to be added to a white list for [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.debian.org/whitelist is the thing you should subscribe. Yours, Cord, Debian Listmaster of the day -- http://lists.debian.org -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: libcwd: one or two packages?
On Wed, Jan 09, 2008 at 09:26:15PM +, Cord Beermann wrote: i can't find anything containing your mailadress in our dropboxes, so if it happens again, that mail from you doesn't go through to a list, check with the Listarchive and if it isn't there after two hours, send us a message: To enable us investigating errors or problems you should provide us with more information. Helpful would be: (we don't need all, provide as much as possible) * the IP, I sent it to a smart host. The routing should be same as any other message that I sent (as well as this one). * the Time (including timezone), I sent my third message at 10 Jan 03:41:02 CET, that is 02:41:02 UTC. * the Message-Id, The Message-ID was: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Note how it contains the time in UTC. * the Adresses you sent from and to, I sent this message to debian-mentors@lists.debian.org of course, and from [EMAIL PROTECTED] * maybe some more things that could be related with that problem. I have subscribed to [EMAIL PROTECTED] around 02:29:46 UTC, just before sending my last message. This did not help. Since all my other mails got through, it has to be something in the body of the message, possibly the URL that I have in it. However, that you'd /dev/null messages of SUBSCRIBED people who are even on the whitelist, would be behond me - so I reall don't know what to think of it. http://lists.debian.org/whitelist is the thing you should subscribe. Done, thus. Didn't help. -- Carlo Wood [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
