Last draft, incorporating the suggestions from Ian and Didier.
=== DRAFT Resolution ===
Vendor-specific patch series are a feature of dpkg that can be used to
apply a different series of quilt patches when the source package is
unpacked on different systems. Since Debian source packages are us
Tollef Fog Heen writes ("Bug#904302: Whether vendor-specific patch series
should be permitted in the archive"):
> Second draft:
...
> The Committee recognises that there is a need for packages to behave
> differently when built on different distributions, but this should
Nice, thanks.
A minor nitpicks inline …
Le mardi, 23 octobre 2018, 21.28:40 h CEST Tollef Fog Heen a écrit :
> === DRAFT Resolution ===
>
> Vendor-specific patch series are a feature of dpkg that can be used to
> apply a different series of quilt patches when the source package is
> unpacked on
]] Tollef Fog Heen
> ]] Tollef Fog Heen
>
> That turned out to be in the rather more distant future than I
> intended. Apologies about that.
… and again.
Diff from previous one:
- Included separate source packages as an alternative to build time
patching.
- Fixed typo.
I have not included
On Fri, Oct 05, 2018 at 08:49:47AM +0200, Philip Hands wrote:
> Adrian Bunk writes:
>
> > On Thu, Oct 04, 2018 at 08:21:07PM +0200, Philip Hands wrote:
> >>...
> >> IMO policy should recomend the use of separate source packages as the
> >> prefered solution to the problem that vendor-specific pat
Le mercredi, 19 septembre 2018, 14.39:23 h CEST Philip Hands a écrit :
> How about this instead:
>
> The Committee therefore resolves that:
>
> 1. Any use of dpkg's vendor-specific patch series feature is a bug for
> packages in the Debian archive (including contrib and non-free),
>
> "Wouter" == Wouter Verhelst writes:
Wouter> But in the general case, I feel that downstream packaging
Wouter> changes belong downstream, not in Debian; therefore it is
Wouter> best to recommend that, in the general case, packages in
Wouter> Debian do not switch on dpkg-vend
On Tue, Oct 09, 2018 at 10:14:44AM -0400, Sam Hartman wrote:
> > "Wouter" == Wouter Verhelst writes:
>
> Wouter> On Fri, Oct 05, 2018 at 08:40:03AM -0400, Sam Hartman wrote:
> >> That said, even there there are tradeoffs. As an example, Ubuntu
> >> tries to use unmodified Debian
> "Wouter" == Wouter Verhelst writes:
Wouter> On Fri, Oct 05, 2018 at 08:40:03AM -0400, Sam Hartman wrote:
>> That said, even there there are tradeoffs. As an example, Ubuntu
>> tries to use unmodified Debian source packages where possible.
>> In some cases I think that the m
On Fri, Oct 05, 2018 at 08:40:03AM -0400, Sam Hartman wrote:
> That said, even there there are tradeoffs.
> As an example, Ubuntu tries to use unmodified Debian source packages
> where possible. In some cases I think that the maintenance advantages
> of doing this and the slight but real political
Sam Hartman writes ("Bug#904302: Whether vendor-specific patch series should be
permitted in the archive [and 1 more messages]"):
> So imagine that Ubuntu and several other downstreams care more about
> security and hardening than they do about backward compatibility and
> they
Actually directly switching on vendor seems fairly bad.
However, to the extent that downstream changes can be encapsulated into
options/deltas that someone might want, I think it may often be
reasonable to carry the delta in Debian.
So imagine that Ubuntu and several other downstreams care more a
Adrian Bunk writes ("Bug#904302: Whether vendor-specific patch series should be
permitted in the archive"):
> On Thu, Oct 04, 2018 at 08:21:07PM +0200, Philip Hands wrote:
> > IMO policy should recomend the use of separate source packages as the
> > prefered solution t
Adrian Bunk writes:
> On Thu, Oct 04, 2018 at 08:21:07PM +0200, Philip Hands wrote:
>>...
>> IMO policy should recomend the use of separate source packages as the
>> prefered solution to the problem that vendor-specific patch series were
>> supposed to address.
>
> In this case please make an exp
On Thu, Oct 04, 2018 at 08:21:07PM +0200, Philip Hands wrote:
>...
> IMO policy should recomend the use of separate source packages as the
> prefered solution to the problem that vendor-specific patch series were
> supposed to address.
In this case please make an explicit decision on whether build
Philip Hands writes ("Re: Bug#904302: Whether vendor-specific patch series
should be permitted in the archive"):
> IMO policy should recomend the use of separate source packages as the
> prefered solution to the problem that vendor-specific patch series were
> supposed to addr
Ian Jackson writes:
> Adrian Bunk writes ("Bug#904302: Whether vendor-specific patch series should
> be permitted in the archive"):
>> On Wed, Sep 19, 2018 at 02:39:23PM +0200, Philip Hands wrote:
>> > The Committee therefore resolves that:
>> >
>
Adrian Bunk writes:
> My understanding of the TC proposal so far is that this would
> recommend a 1:1 conversion from vendor-specific patch series
> to build-time patching. And as I said, you could even get rid
> of the "after buster" part if someone has conversions for all
> of the 18 affected
On Thu, Oct 04, 2018 at 01:32:08PM +0100, Ian Jackson wrote:
> Adrian Bunk writes ("Bug#904302: Whether vendor-specific patch series should
> be permitted in the archive"):
> > On Wed, Sep 19, 2018 at 02:39:23PM +0200, Philip Hands wrote:
> > > The Co
Adrian Bunk writes ("Bug#904302: Whether vendor-specific patch series should be
permitted in the archive"):
> On Wed, Sep 19, 2018 at 02:39:23PM +0200, Philip Hands wrote:
> > The Committee therefore resolves that:
> >
> > 1. Any use of dpkg's vendor-sp
On Wed, Sep 19, 2018 at 02:39:23PM +0200, Philip Hands wrote:
>...
> The Committee therefore resolves that:
>
> 1. Any use of dpkg's vendor-specific patch series feature is a bug for
> packages in the Debian archive (including contrib and non-free),
This misses an important part of the p
Sean Whitton writes ("Bug#904302: Whether vendor-specific patch series should
be permitted in the archive"):
> I would be grateful if you would micromanage just enough that there
> isn't anything controversial left for people to disagree about :)
That seems like a gener
Hello,
On Tue 02 Oct 2018 at 07:48PM +0200, Tollef Fog Heen wrote:
> Given the entire decision has been delegated to us, I think we should,
> yes. If we'd just been asked to decide on a matter of technical policy,
> that would have been slightly different.
I think that the wording of my initial
]] Philip Hands
> On reflection this seems like we're straying into micro-management.
> Should we really be determining the detail of how this is done in
> policy?
Given the entire decision has been delegated to us, I think we should,
yes. If we'd just been asked to decide on a matter of techni
Philip Hands writes ("Bug#904302: Whether vendor-specific patch series should
be permitted in the archive"):
> Possibly also with something like this?:
>
> Post-Buster this should be implemented in Debian Policy by
> declaring that a package MUST NOT contai
Tollef Fog Heen writes:
> ]] Philip Hands
>
>> Tollef Fog Heen writes:
>>
>> >This should be implemented in Debian Policy by declaring that a a
>>^^^
>> You've this doubled 'a' on two occasions in this text.
>
> I'll fix t
]] Philip Hands
> Tollef Fog Heen writes:
>
> >This should be implemented in Debian Policy by declaring that a a
>^^^
> You've this doubled 'a' on two occasions in this text.
I'll fix that, thanks for spotting it.
> Presu
Tollef Fog Heen writes:
>This should be implemented in Debian Policy by declaring that a a
^^^
You've this doubled 'a' on two occasions in this text.
Presumaly we would not want to see new packages adopting the use of
vendor-
Hello,
On Sat 15 Sep 2018 at 07:06PM +0200, Tollef Fog Heen wrote:
> A first draft is below, feedback on wording and content appreciated.
LGTM, thank you.
--
Sean Whitton
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
On Sat, Sep 15, 2018 at 04:14:57PM -0300, David Bremner wrote:
> Tollef Fog Heen writes:
>
> >
> > The Committee recognises that there is a need for packages to behave
> > differently when built on different distributions, but this should be
> > done as part of the build process, using current an
Tollef Fog Heen writes:
>
> The Committee recognises that there is a need for packages to behave
> differently when built on different distributions, but this should be
> done as part of the build process, using current and future practices
> such as patches with conditional behaviour, patching o
]] Tollef Fog Heen
> ]] Sean Whitton
>
> > The concrete question that I am asking the committee to decide, in my
> > capacity as a Policy delegate, is whether or not vendor-specific patch
> > series should be permitted in the Debian archive.
>
> It's now been five days since I mailed the vario
Hello Marga,
On Wed 15 Aug 2018 at 11:35AM +0200, Margarita Manterola wrote:
> Apart from this, the concern that has been raised about making packages
> instabuggy is valid. I would like our decision to include that this
> should
> be SHOULD first, giving maintainers a window of time to fix their
On 2018-08-09 21:22, Tollef Fog Heen wrote:
It's now been five days since I mailed the various package
maintainers. I intend to write up a resolution and then call for a vote
in the not-too-distant future, so if there is anything we have not
covered in the discussion so far, please chime in soone
Colin Watson writes ("Bug#904302: Whether vendor-specific patch series should
be permitted in the archive"):
> ... My opinion from experience with this feature is that those
> derivative maintainers would have an easier time if they used
> patches with conditional behavio
]] Sean Whitton
> The concrete question that I am asking the committee to decide, in my
> capacity as a Policy delegate, is whether or not vendor-specific patch
> series should be permitted in the Debian archive.
It's now been five days since I mailed the various package
maintainers. I intend to
Hi,
[As the main liferea uploader and the one that implemented this there.]
On Thu, 2 Aug 2018 09:46:28 +0100 Simon McVittie wrote:
> liferea, a RSS feed reader, uses Ubuntu RSS feeds by default when unpacked
> on Ubuntu. This is a patch to XML configuration files, so would not be
> trivial to d
On Thu, Aug 02, 2018 at 09:46:28AM +0100, Simon McVittie wrote:
> mate-terminal and tilix, both terminals, have been adapted to Ubuntu
> having patched vte to stay with pcre instead of moving to pcre2.
> mate-terminal could easily use cpp; tilix is written in D, and I don't
> know whether that has
On Mon, 23 Jul 2018 at 09:22:17 +0800, Sean Whitton wrote:
> There are currently at least 18 source packages which use
> vendor-specific series files. I have not been able to determine an
> upper bound.
Here is a survey of packages that do this, based on this search from
Stuart Prescott
$ apt-fi
Hi Gunnar,
On Mon, 2018-07-30 at 00:14:23 -0500, Gunnar Wolf wrote:
> Still, I would like to have Guillem's opinion.
Sorry, but I'd rather not participate in the processes I very strongly
disagree with, for a body I don't think should even exist.
Thanks,
Guillem
Hello,
On Mon 30 Jul 2018 at 02:20PM +1000, Stuart Prescott wrote:
> The normal mantra is: "policy is to document standard practice", "policy is
> not a stick to beat maintainers with", "policy changes should (normally) not
> make packages instabuggy". The current approach is not consistent with
]] Gunnar Wolf
> ...Although if we make a policy change in this, it will require
> cooperation of the dpkg developers if we don't want to go into 6.1.4
> (which we don't).
No, it won't, it's a policy change on what's allowed in the archive, not
what features dpkg is allowed to implement.
I imag
Sean Whitton dijo [Mon, Jul 30, 2018 at 12:01:35PM +0800]:
> > ...Although if we make a policy change in this, it will require
> > cooperation of the dpkg developers if we don't want to go into 6.1.4
> > (which we don't).
>
> Sorry, I don't follow.
>
> Surely policy can disallow things in package
On Sunday, 29 July 2018 22:14:23 AEST Gunnar Wolf wrote:
> Sean Whitton dijo [Mon, Jul 30, 2018 at 09:30:04AM +0800]:
> > > I believe his request might also be considered under §6.1.1, since we're
> > > being asked about a policy change. (After talking to Sean in person, he
> > > said he intended
Hello,
On Sun 29 Jul 2018 at 10:14PM -0500, Gunnar Wolf wrote:
> Sean Whitton dijo [Mon, Jul 30, 2018 at 09:30:04AM +0800]:
>> > I believe his request might also be considered under §6.1.1, since we're
>> > being asked about a policy change. (After talking to Sean in person, he
>> > said he inte
Sean Whitton dijo [Mon, Jul 30, 2018 at 09:30:04AM +0800]:
> > I believe his request might also be considered under §6.1.1, since we're
> > being asked about a policy change. (After talking to Sean in person, he
> > said he intended it under §6.1.3, not §6.1.1, though.)
>
> I think technically it
Hello,
On Sun 29 Jul 2018 at 07:52AM +0200, Tollef Fog Heen wrote:
> I believe his request might also be considered under §6.1.1, since we're
> being asked about a policy change. (After talking to Sean in person, he
> said he intended it under §6.1.3, not §6.1.1, though.)
I think technically it
Hi,
On Sat, 28 Jul 2018, Colin Watson wrote:
> > Debian should not seek to prevent maintainers doing something that
> > they have agreed to do in collaboration with downstreams.
>
> My memory of the origin of this feature is that the dpkg developer who
> originated it asked me if it might help wi
]] Stuart Prescott
> Essentially, this is a request that the TC overrule both Debian
> maintainers *and* derivative maintainers in what they have agreed as a
> workflow that obviously works for them. Today, Debian decides to not
> allow debian/patches/vendor.series, then tomorrow, a derivative
>
On Sat, Jul 28, 2018 at 02:18:51AM +1000, Stuart Prescott wrote:
> Debian does not micromanage its maintainers and Debian most certainly does
> not tell derivatives what to do; however, that is precisely what this
> proposal is requesting.
Is it? What I see is more like a derivative (or at leas
> The concrete question that I am asking the committee to decide, in my
> capacity as a Policy delegate, is whether or not vendor-specific patch
> series should be permitted in the Debian archive.
I can see that a user might find it surprising that a source package is
unpacked differently on diff
]] Sean Whitton
> The concrete question that I am asking the committee to decide, in my
> capacity as a Policy delegate, is whether or not vendor-specific patch
> series should be permitted in the Debian archive.
>
> There is a broader question of whether source packages should be allowed
> to u
Sean Whitton dijo [Mon, Jul 23, 2018 at 09:22:17AM +0800]:
> As a Debian Policy delegate I hereby request that the Technical
> Committee decide whether a proposal that has been submitted to modify
> the Debian Policy Manual should be accepted:
>
> #850156 [n| | ] [dpkg-dev, debian-policy] Pl
Sean Whitton writes:
> The concrete question that I am asking the committee to decide, in my
> capacity as a Policy delegate, is whether or not vendor-specific patch
> series should be permitted in the Debian archive.
While I am no longer a member of the TC, and my analysis of the
situation cons
Package: tech-ctte
X-debbugs-cc: debian-pol...@lists.debian.org, sunwea...@debian.org,
ijack...@chiark.greenend.org.uk, s...@debian.org, vor...@debian.org
Control: block 850156 by -1
As a Debian Policy delegate I hereby request that the Technical
Committee decide whether a proposal that has been
55 matches
Mail list logo
