Hi, On Mon, Aug 19, 2024 at 12:03:47AM +0200, Andrea Bolognani wrote: > On Sat, Aug 10, 2024 at 06:19:31PM +0200, Andrea Bolognani wrote: > > I spent some more time testing the restructuring today, and it seems > > to behave well. There is still one known issue with transferring > > conffiles between packages under certain conditions, but I believe > > that I have a solid plan to deal with that and I just need to > > implement it. There are probably other smaller issues with > > dependencies and such, but I think that the overall "shape" of the > > end result is near-final. > > > > The git history is still a complete mess though, and I really need to > > polish that up before I feel comfortable asking the poor reviewers to > > wade through it O:-) > > > > So, here's my proposal: in two weeks' time, i.e. by August 25, I > > will upload a version of libvirt that includes both the restructuring > > and the usr-merge bits to experimental. > > > > This upload will not be prepared from the official git repository, > > but from my own fork. This removes the need to have all changes > > squeaky-clean and reviewed before we can proceed, and allows us to > > move forward with whatever I have ready at the time. > > > > The idea is that this will give dumat a chance to validate the whole > > ordeal and ensure that users will not run into file loss scenarios. > > If any issue is detected, we'll have the opportunity to rectify it; > > if not, we can feel safer about taking a bit longer to polish and > > land the restructuring. > > > > I will of course endeavor to get the branch in a reviewable shape, or > > as close to that as possible, before then. > > > > Does this plan sound reasonable? > > Since no disagreement was raised, I'm working under the assumption > that everybody is okay with this plan. > > I've made some more progress over the past week, including fixing the > known bug mentioned earlier and integrating the usr-merge patches. > Things generally seem to work fine. > > I have however realized that there is an obstacle to enacting the > plan as outlined above: the restructuring involves introducing > several new binary packages, which in turns requires a trip through > the NEW queue, and I'm not (yet) a Debian Developer so I can't > prepare the upload myself. > > Guido, would you be willing to take care of that part?
I can sure handle the upload. Would be nice to be able to look at the diff (commits don't need to be cleaned up yet) as early as possible. Cheers, -- Guido > > I still need to clean up the git history, but given the current > status I'm feeling relatively optimistic and I'm convinced I should > be able to cobble together something good enough for a proper (draft) > merge request by either Friday or Saturday evening. > > That'd give Guido approximately a day to sanity-check the changes and > prepare the upload if we want to stick to the original schedule. > Hopefully that's workable. > > Also note that the implementation of usr-merge I've imported is the > same proposed by Michael, which can't be sensibly backported to older > releases. As mentioned in [59] this might be a problem for Ubuntu, so > I'm CC'ing Christian again in order to give him another chance to > speak up. > > > [59] https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=1064126#59 > -- > Andrea Bolognani <e...@kiyuko.org> > Resistance is futile, you will be garbage collected.
