On 03/19/2013 09:33 AM, Leopold Palomo-Avellaneda wrote:
> A Divendres, 15 de març de 2013, Gilles Chanteperdrix va escriure:
>> On 03/14/2013 01:16 PM, Leopold Palomo-Avellaneda wrote:
>>
>>> A Dimecres, 13 de març de 2013, Gilles Chanteperdrix va escriure:
>>>> On 03/13/2013 04:47 PM, Leopold Palomo-Avellaneda wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Hi, (I think that I always put Hi or Bones (in catalan ..),
>>>>>
>>>>> I would like to put some comments to this thread:
>>>>>
>>>>> <Roland>
>>>>> I really understand that you will take care of the debian directory of
> the
>>>>> upstream code. Probably I misunderstand something reading your posts ...
> I
>>>>> understand Gilles mail.
>>>>>
>>>>> I propose to have two branches in the upstream tree, one with the
>>> necessary
>>>>> stuff to create a kernel package for the debian stable tree (with their
>>>>> kernel) and another for the sid/testing. This stuff could be the same of
>>> the
>>>>> official ones. Maybe some submodules or another hyper-special
>>> characteristic
>>>>> of git could help.
>>>>>
>>>>> I don't understand your tone in your last mails. I think that it has
> been
>>> a
>>>>> misunderstanding problem. Please, _we_ can do it better.
>>>>> </Roland>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> <Gilles/Jan>
>>>>> Yes, I understand to Stéphane. However as I'm in several projects, a lot
>>> of
>>>>> mails and to much things and a few time to do it. I have had the same
>>> feeling,
>>>>> but, well, maybe I begin to be a bit old and ....
>>>>>
>>>>> I send to patch to UPSTREAM not to debian packagers. The script belongs
> to
>>>>> upstream. I had a bad feeling because no answer to the patch, no push. I
>>> had
>>>>> to insist because the stupid error. But, rereading the mail I think that
> I
>>>>> post it in a wrong and confusing way: mea culpa.
>>>>> </Gilles/Jan>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Hi Leopold,
>>>>
>>>> Yes, there was a misunderstanding, but ultimately, I am the one who did
>>>> the release, so, I could have tried to fix things. The truth is that I
>>>> simply forgot the issue you reported. So, mea culpa.
>>>
>>> too many guilty for a little thing ;-)
>>>
>>>> As for maintaing two debian directories, this is a bad idea, as long as
>>>> we can make one which works for all releases, this is simply less work.
>>>> So, let us keep it that way.
>>>
>>> Well, I explain myself. Normally _we_ have a stable version, with the
> needed
>>> kernel and sometimes, a more modern kernel, (backported) or in a
>>> testing/unstable version the modern kernel.
>>>
>>> It's not easy sometimes to have a modern kernel in a stable version of
> debian.
>>> So, as now in the transitional time we should need two versions of the
>>> package. That's why my propose.
>>>
>>> OTOH, if we have _one_ sync with debian to me it's perfect. All of as we
> have
>>> a lot of things to do, so less work.
>>>
>>> I hope that all could be solved.
>>
>>
>> Hi Leopold,
>>
>> quite frankly I do not understand what you are talking about.
>
> :-)
>
>> What I am
>> talking about is the "debian" directory in xenomai sources.
>
> yes, I was talking about the same.
>
>> It seems
>> simpler to me to have only one directory which works for all Debian
>> branches, in order to allow users to generate packages for the
>> distribution they want. That is all I am saying.
>
> if it works, to me it's ok. But I don't know if you can have _one_ directory
> for all Debian branches. For example in the control file:
>
> Build-Depends: debhelper (>= 8), findutils (>= 4.2.28), autotools-dev,
> autoconf, automake, libtool
>
> I cannot predict if jezzie will introduce a change in debhelper that breaks
> wheezy. Or findutils could have a very different version in wheezy than
> squeeze. Or simple, we could have different versions (backports, testing,
> experimental) for the same sources and the changelog file will be a mesh.
>
> It's just and idea. But, taking in mind how many users uses it and the amount
> of work that represents it, please do it the most simplest way.
I do not think depending on too old versions really matters. I happen to
regularly compile on squeeze packages not for squeeze, and most of the
time, simply modifying the control file to require lower versions simply
works. So, conversely having a control file requesting too old versions
should not be a problem.
I agree that there may be other reasons why the package could break on
more recent versions, if that happens and someone actually has the
problem, we will get a bug report and react accordingly.
Note that the debian directory is mostly for the stable branch, as
Roland takes care of debian packages for the other branches.
--
Gilles.
_______________________________________________
Xenomai mailing list
[email protected]
http://www.xenomai.org/mailman/listinfo/xenomai
