On Wed, Jan 23, 2013 at 04:46:06AM +0100, Guillem Jover wrote: > Hi! > > On Tue, 2013-01-22 at 23:16:06 +0000, Roger Leigh wrote: > > On Thu, Jan 10, 2013 at 11:46:46AM +0100, Niels Thykier wrote: > > > Things have changed a bit since we talked about this last year. > > > > > > This number is now about 3700, which is still a bit much. In the > > > interest of not getting a lot of mail from people aggrevated by their > > > package being auto-rejected, I still feel the tags should remain split > > > for now (until that number drops a bit more and Wheezy has been released). > > > > > > I am open to bumping the severity of the recommended-target tag > > > (possibly including a rename) to make the tag more visible and hopefully > > > increasing the adoption rate of this tag (well, the post-freeze adoption > > > rate). > > > > Ccing the dpkg maintainers, since the lintian checks will be > > coupled to changes in the tools, and it's really down to them > > when this happens. > > Well, I'm really not comfortable deciding unilaterally on a flag day > when thousands of packages will start FTBFS, for something that will > affect so many people. I think this should be discussed and agreed > with the project at large.
Absolutely, this definitely needs wider discussion. I really just intended this to be preliminary to that to see if getting this done for jessie was a mutually desirable goal. Which seems to be the case. But how we go about achieving that goal is definitely in need of wider discussion. > In any case my opinion on this is that yes, getting rid of the > autodetection hack before jessie is out, would be ideal, but if that > cannot happen, then oh well, this has taken a looong time, having to > wait a bit longer should not be the end of the world. > > I think the less painful way to achieve that would be by a staged > increase of the enforcing level of those targets, where changing dpkg > to require them should be the last stage when really few packages > still do not provide it, because otherwise mass rebuilds, binNMUs and > similar become very painful. > > The first stage could be to wait a bit after testing thaws to see the > progress; after a bit, change/rename the tag to an error w/o autoreject. > Wait and see how it progresses, and after a bit more (several months) > change it to autoreject, but not for binNMUs if that's possible? to > avoid disrupting the release process. And then only a small tail > should remain which could be handled by a MBF etc. After or during > this last stage dpkg could be switched. I think this all makes a good deal of sense. It's certainly logistically impractical to "force" the issue by changing dpkg until the vast majority of packages are converted, so we certainly need to encourage adoption by other means and do this as the final step. As for when build-arch and build-indep were introduced, I'll be happy to do a set of whole-archive rebuilds to obtain concrete numbers once wheezy is released, and onward from that as needed, if I can get access to the hardware to do this. Regards, Roger -- .''`. Roger Leigh : :' : Debian GNU/Linux http://people.debian.org/~rleigh/ `. `' schroot and sbuild http://alioth.debian.org/projects/buildd-tools `- GPG Public Key F33D 281D 470A B443 6756 147C 07B3 C8BC 4083 E800 -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-dpkg-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/20130124221359.go16...@codelibre.net
