On Wed, Apr 28, 2010 at 12:03:28AM -0700, Elliott Mitchell wrote: > >From: Matija Nalis <mnalis-deb...@voyager.hr> > > note: you still didn't say in which way it broke the older unofficial > > package for you ? > > Well, unless specially modified, all the various package utilities > running on top of dpkg will attempt to replace any ucspi-tcp package > produced via ucspi-tcp-src, with ones produced from src:ucspi-tcp. While
Yes they will. That is I believe intended behavior, as it is the same source package (just different versions of it). In such case (unless otherwise directed, see below), APT will by default choose what it believes is newer version. Of course the two different versions will often be different in features, bugs, optimizations etc (otherwise there would be no point for the other version if they were *completely* the same). If upgrading with newer package was a bug (which it isn't), it should be filed against apt-get or even dpkg. So, original question was "what broke"? You still didn't answer that. Package being upgraded is not breaking. If you lost some functionality, that might have been breakage (from your POV), and that is what I (and Gerrit, I believe) are interested in details of. For example, if main/ucspi-tcp lacks some feature provided by non-free/ucspi-tcp-src, and you upgraded by mistake (despite being warned) and your system stopped working correctly because of that; and *that* missing feature is what is actually bugging you (ie. upgrade removed some feature which is usefull), the correct way to go would be file a feature request for that feature -- and certainly filing not a major bug requesting the removal of the package! > this isn't the most severe form of breakage that can occur, it is still > easily qualifies as "breakage". No, it is not "breakage", that is perfectly normal and intended behavior when you have more than one repository: like having lenny/main + lenny/non-free, or lenny/main + squeeze/main, or main + volatile + backports + proposed updates, or many of the other combinations that people use everyday. If you have more than one repository (and hence, possibly more than one version of the same package), it is your responsibility as the admin to define which will have precedence (either via holding, or via /etc/apt/preferences or other methods). It is also always your responsibility as the admin to check if stuff works after upgrading. The package maintainers' good will is they warn you about possible breakages if they think it is a big enough issue (which in this case they did, AFAIU ?) You can find more about that in section 3.10 of dealing with multiple repositories for example here (even if little old): http://www.debian.org/doc/manuals/apt-howto/ch-apt-get.en.html If you refuse to deal with issues that multiple repositories bring, I would advise not using multiple repositories in the first place, then. > > Please read Debian social contract, section 5: > > > > `We acknowledge that some of our users require the use of works that do not > > conform to the Debian Free Software Guidelines. We have created "contrib" > > and "non-free" areas in our archive for these works. The packages in these > > areas are not part of the Debian system, although they have been configured > > for use with Debian.' > > > > So, "are not part of the Debian" == "unofficial" > > > > ucspi-tcp-src if (as of yet) part of "non-free", and hence unofficial. > > Sigh, interesting point and since you bring it up, it seems I need to > generate *another* pair of wishlist/minor bugs for > ucspi-tcp-src/qmail-src on this topic. That may be. I see you have made at least one such proposal. My proposal would instead be to abandon obsolete packages as there is no need for them anymore (*-src packages are extremely ugly kludge used only when legal issues prevent debian binary distribution) to prevent useless duplication of efforts; maybe accompanied with feature-requests on ucspi-tcp to add some missing patches/features if they were present in other package but are not present in currently official one. Also note that by now, many people have upgraded to official Debian ("main") version of ucspi-tcp, so one should thread carefully if s/he intends to force some other (such as from unofficial ucspi-tcp-src) behavior on them. > I would suggest spending a bit more time examing the situation before > replying so casually. Specifically, you have utterly failed to grasp the > history of the relevant packages and why they are the way they are in the > situation they are in. No, I'm actually very well informed about Dan licensing (and his ideas behind it), and with Debians' problems with it, as well as deciding for going PD and results of that; and was for quite a long time. (please do not use Debian bug tracker to start pointless little flamewars by such personal insults. It does not help anyone). > ucspi-tcp-src is not in non-free due to poor packaging or tools used by > Jon Marler when packaging it. ucspi-tcp-src is in non-free because for a > long time, Daniel J Bernstein's license for ucspi-tcp FORBADE > distribution of binary-only packages. The "ucspi-tcp-src" package Actually, it never did that, if you want to be precise. It always explicitly allowed distribution of precompiled ucspi-tcp (or qmail,...) packages, provided some conditions were met. (you can easily look at archive.org or other archives before 2007 of http://cr.yp.to/distributors.html for details of such conditions). It is just that such conditions did not fit DFSG, so the only realistic way for having relatively easily available .deb packages was to use source distribution allowed by Dan and then patch it and recompile on-site (without distributing those binaries), thus putting it outside Debian (in unofficial, yet working, "non-free"). > predates the license change by several years. Meanwhile, the "ucspi-tcp" > came in post license change and thus started out in main. Yes. Which does not change the fact that ucspi-tcp-src is *still* in non-free, and as such is still *NOT* part of Debian (I've quoted you the Debian Social Contract which you seem to be unaware of; even if it is the most fundamental of all Debian documents). Yeah, the ucspi-tcp-src maintainer could've made an effort years ago to move it to main when Dan announced going PD (assuming none of the additional patches have license issues with that). He didn't. He still can try, although it is much more complited, and very much more pointless now when somebody else has already made the effort. As ucspi-tcp-src (as the rest of non-free) is *NOT* part of the Debian (I know I'm repeating myself, but that just seems to be the issue you have big trouble comprehending), it is not all that different as trying to get any other package from any other unofficial repository into Debian main. > > People could've been using other unofficial sources compatible with Debian > > (there are dozens, look up apt-get.org list for example); and I think it is > > unreasonable to expect Debian changing its' official packages in order to > > satisfy minor concerns of the unofficial ones. > > This is a ridiculous comparison. ucspi-tcp-src is in the DEBIAN > repository, not some specialized repository. No it is not. non-free is *NOT* part of the Debian. I've quoted you SC explicitly stating so. Why do you try to persist in claiming it is ? "non-free" is not part of Debian system, nor it ever was (and hopefully will never be, at least while this Social Contract stands). It is only hosted on debian servers, and some effort is made by non-free maintainers not to conflict with and break main (as it is normal behavior with most, if not all, debian-compatible unofficial repositories). Also note that there are quite a few other non-official debian-compatible packages hosted on debian.org servers (for example, a whole lot of stuff on people.debian.org) > > So if anything (if you think there is an conflict that needs to be solved, > > which I also fail to see), ucspi-tcp-src package should be modified *not* to > > create binary package called ucspi-tcp, as there is already a package with > > such name which *is* a part of Debian (the one Gerrit maintains). > > Well, I can understand you coming to this conclusion due to your lack of > knowledge. (and again you resort to ad-hominem logical fallacies in absence of arguments) What would you accept as a proof that "non-free" is not a part of Debian system, if even the http://www.debian.org/social_contract explicit wording does not convince you ? > Take a look at the situation, ucspi-tcp-src has been in Debian for more > than a decade. ucspi-tcp-src is in non-free because it predates > the license change that allows the binary "ucspi-tcp" package to exist at > all. As the license change has occurred, ucspi-tcp-src can almost > certainly be moved to main without modification (I doubt there are any > concerns, but I haven't audited it for problems). Yeah, it could've probably been easily moved *before* current main/ucspi-tcp came into existence if there was a will on maintainer side; nowadays it is much harder (as it is more or less clear that one of the packages is obsolete and should probably be removed. Unless there is agreement between the maintainers, the non-free one is usually the one to go, unless it can be converted to "main", and the non-free maintainer is much more responsive and does better job than the current maintainer, which I also do not see to be the case here -- just check the PTS) > Since ucspi-tcp-src has been using the name "ucspi-tcp" for more than a > decade, Anyway it's not about what unofficial package is older -- hey, if it were so, it might even be that *I* myself should be making decisions: I've been building my own ucspi-tcp packages before there were any qmail/ucspi-tcp packages in either main or non-free (hell, by the time they were in non-free, I've been so much into it that I was already coding my own patches for qmail and tcpserver and building packages of that; I'm sure you can still find out some of those patches with little googling around). But, it is instead about what *Debian* package ("Debian package" as in "package that is (official) part of Debian system", and NOT as in "debian-compatible" like non-free or Ubuntu stuff or apt-get.org or some other random .deb package) came first. > I must attribute the fault to the packaging job done by Gerrit Pape. Fault ?! Somebody actually makes an effort to do some job (and do it well: thanks, Gerrit!), and you call that an "fault" ?! If there was any "fault", it was with original maintainer of ucspi-tcp-src not taking the effort to fix the package and move it in main years ago; and definitely NOT in the person who actually decided to put same effort and fix the problem! (note that I myself would not consider original maintainer a "fault" at all, quite the contrary! - we all get different priorities in different parts of our lives, so this one just probably never become important enough. But still, it is IMO not a "fault" if someone fails to be beneficial to Debian forever after being beneficial for some time -- none of us will, you know? People come and go, if no other way then by then by nature laws. You get good karma by volunteering to do some good stuff - but one most definitely does not deserve punishment if s/he decide not to continue volunteering until his/her final day of life!) Anyway I hope you will realize that I'm "not out there to get you" and that you'll be able to see what the question being asked is (and maybe even understand why it is being asked). If you do, I'd be happy to try to help you (by porting patches or validating their licences or whatever is needed). If you however would rather makes this some crusade or whatever, I'm not interested in that. -- Opinions above are GNU-copylefted. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-bugs-dist-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
