Em Dom, 2005-06-19 às 16:22 +0100, Scott James Remnant escreveu:
> A definitive example would be the (eventually abandoned) attempt by
> Ximian to provide debs for Helix GNOME.
I was working in a GNOME2 backport back then, IIRC. I remember the Helix
GNOME debs were simply low quality, with non-sen
On 6/20/05, Ian Murdock <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On 6/18/05, Michael K. Edwards <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > In any case, Ubuntu packages aren't Debian packages any more than
> > Mandrake packages are Red Hat packages.
>
> If Ubuntu sees itself to Debian as Mandrake was to Red Hat, then that
On Mon, Jun 20, 2005 at 05:44:33AM -0500, Ian Murdock wrote:
> I don't know if you release this, but this is exactly what Red Hat
> says too. "RHEL is free, because we provide the source code.
> Binaries aren't important to free software." Well, they're pretty
> damned important to Red Hat, to the
On 6/19/05, Scott James Remnant <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Sun, 2005-06-19 at 11:42 -0400, Joey Hess wrote:
> > Scott James Remnant wrote:
> > > Walking up to a "man on the street", if anything, you'll find Debian has
> > > a far worse reputation than RPM and RedHat-derived distributions. The
* Scott James Remnant
| A definitive example would be the (eventually abandoned) attempt by
| Ximian to provide debs for Helix GNOME.
At the same time, I've never had a problem Opera debs provided by
Opera Software.
--
Tollef Fog Heen,''`
On 6/18/05, Steve Langasek <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Is Progeny interested in working with other Debian (+Ubuntu) folks to
> solve the fundamental limitations of the shlibs system that cause sarge and
> hoary to be incompatible due to a single-symbol difference, and that will
> cause similar bre
On 6/18/05, Matt Zimmerman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> For open source software as a rule, the most important interface level is
> the source code. [...]
>
> [...]
>
> The cost of guaranteeing ABI compatibility is high, and the benefit to free
> software is marginal. It is a problem for proprieta
On 6/18/05, Michael K. Edwards <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> In any case, Ubuntu packages aren't Debian packages any more than
> Mandrake packages are Red Hat packages.
If Ubuntu sees itself to Debian as Mandrake was to Red Hat, then that
certainly explains a lot.
> If you want binary
> compatibil
On Sun, Jun 19, 2005 at 05:19:08PM +0100, Scott James Remnant wrote:
> > > A definitive example would be the (eventually abandoned) attempt by
> > > Ximian to provide debs for Helix GNOME.
> >
> > Didn't that have more to do with it being experimental, rather flakey,
> > and conflicting badly wit
On 6/19/05, Steve Langasek <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Sun, Jun 19, 2005 at 01:41:47AM -0700, Michael K. Edwards wrote:
> > The examples that come to mind immediately are those with substantial
> > components in both native code and an interpreted or bytecode
> > language, such as Perl XSUBs an
On Sun, Jun 19, 2005 at 01:41:47AM -0700, Michael K. Edwards wrote:
> On 6/19/05, Steve Langasek <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Of 596 "lib" packages in woody (loosely identified), 325 are still
> > present in sarge. That's after three years of more or less constant
> > development. Where did you
On Sun, Jun 19, 2005 at 11:13:31AM -0400, Joey Hess wrote:
> Michael K. Edwards wrote:
> > I can think of several ways that this could happen, but I haven't
> > actually seen any of them yet. Would you mind adducing some examples?
>
> I haven't bothered to find them, but given what I'm hearing a
Scott James Remnant <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> The main problem they had was that they created the debs for potato, and
> they were perfectly installable on that. But Debian changed things
> hugely in unstable, so they weren't installable there -- and then
> introduced testing, making three in
Scott James Remnant <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Sat, 2005-06-18 at 11:35 -0500, Ian Murdock wrote:
>> "Debian packages just work" has been a truism for *years*, and it's
>> been one of our key technical selling points. I don't want to see that
>> fall by the wayside. This thread is a perfect
On 6/19/05, Scott James Remnant <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Let's use a popular example... I make a package that
> requires /usr/bin/bzgrep.
>
> In Debian, I would have to read the debian/changelog for bzip2 and
> discover that this wasn't introduced until 1.0.1-3, and thus
>Depends: bzi
On Sun, 2005-06-19 at 11:42 -0400, Joey Hess wrote:
> Scott James Remnant wrote:
> > Walking up to a "man on the street", if anything, you'll find Debian has
> > a far worse reputation than RPM and RedHat-derived distributions. The
> > general feeling is that third-party RPMs will almost always i
Scott James Remnant wrote:
> Walking up to a "man on the street", if anything, you'll find Debian has
> a far worse reputation than RPM and RedHat-derived distributions. The
> general feeling is that third-party RPMs will almost always install on
> any system, while third-party .debs are practical
On Sat, 2005-06-18 at 11:35 -0500, Ian Murdock wrote:
> "Debian packages just work" has been a truism for *years*, and it's been
> one of our key technical selling points. I don't want to see that fall
> by the wayside. This thread is a perfect example of what will happen
> if we don't worry about
Matt Zimmerman wrote:
> I disagree, but again, I don't see your point
I think this sums up your entire response nicely, which is why I won't
reply to it point-by-point. You're not interested in trying to
understand these concerns, but you dismiss them out of hand. Fine.
--
see shy jo
signature
Michael K. Edwards wrote:
> > No, Debian packages just work, if dpkg allows you to install them on
> > your system.
> >
> > Unless, now, they happen to be built by someone running the other
> > distribution.
>
> I can think of several ways that this could happen, but I haven't
> actually seen any
On 6/19/05, Steve Langasek <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Of 596 "lib" packages in woody (loosely identified), 325 are still
> present in sarge. That's after three years of more or less constant
> development. Where did you come up with this absurd idea that all binary
> packages "of any great comp
On Sat, Jun 18, 2005 at 11:22:35PM -0700, Michael K. Edwards wrote:
> On 6/18/05, Joey Hess <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Matt Zimmerman wrote:
> > > Practically speaking, the differences in compatibility between Ubuntu and
> > > Debian is of as much concern as those between Debian stable and Debi
On Sat, Jun 18, 2005 at 10:33:06PM -0400, Joey Hess wrote:
> Except unstable is capable of running packages built on stable
Trivial packages which only link against libc, yes. In general, no. And
many packages from unstable won't build correctly (or at all) on stable
during most of the release
On 6/18/05, Joey Hess <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Matt Zimmerman wrote:
> > Practically speaking, the differences in compatibility between Ubuntu and
> > Debian is of as much concern as those between Debian stable and Debian
> > unstable. New interfaces are added in unstable constantly, and softw
On Sat, Jun 18, 2005 at 11:35:21AM -0500, Ian Murdock wrote:
> > The fact is that Hoary *was* binary compatible (in both directions) with
> > both sarge and sid when it was released. Later, the Debian glibc
> > maintainers and release managers considered changing the ABI in order to fix
> > a bug
Matt Zimmerman wrote:
> Practically speaking, the differences in compatibility between Ubuntu and
> Debian is of as much concern as those between Debian stable and Debian
> unstable. New interfaces are added in unstable constantly, and software is
> adapted to use them. Binary packages from unsta
On Sat, Jun 18, 2005 at 11:35:21AM -0500, Ian Murdock wrote:
> Please don't be dramatic. I'm not demanding anything. I'm expressing a
> concern, and a legitimate one.
I'm not the only one who isn't convinced of the accuracy of the predictions
which form the basis of your concerns. First, they're
On 6/18/05, Ian Murdock <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I'm more worried about the future; and I still haven't seen anyone
> address my initial question, which is why Ubuntu is tracking sid on core
> things like libc in the first place. The value you add is around
> the edges with stuff like X.org and
On Jun 18, Ian Murdock <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> "Debian packages just work" has been a truism for *years*, and it's been
And now people are learning that Debian packages are not Debian/unstable
packages nor Ubuntu packages. Big deal.
I still do not see any harm caused by this, except some spec
On 6/17/05, Matt Zimmerman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> As I've said to you privately already, I do not feel that demanding binary
> compatibility between Debian and Ubuntu is the best way to address your
> concerns. You seem to disagree strongly, as is of course your right, but I
> think that som
On Fri, Jun 17, 2005 at 09:32:49AM +0100, Andrew Suffield wrote:
> On Fri, Jun 17, 2005 at 12:15:25AM -0700, Steve Langasek wrote:
> > On Fri, Jun 17, 2005 at 08:07:34AM +0100, Andrew Suffield wrote:
> > > On Fri, Jun 17, 2005 at 04:26:36AM +0100, Scott James Remnant wrote:
> > > > On Thu, 2005-06-
On Fri, Jun 17, 2005 at 01:55:57PM -0500, Ian Murdock wrote:
> I don't doubt there were changes, even some worthwhile changes,
> between the version of libc in sarge and the versions in
> hoary/breezy. My question is: Are the changes worth breaking
> compatibility? It's a cost/benefit thing. And i
On Jun 17, Ian Murdock <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I don't doubt there were changes, even some worthwhile changes,
> between the version of libc in sarge and the versions in
> hoary/breezy. My question is: Are the changes worth breaking
> compatibility? It's a cost/benefit thing. And if they're
>
On Fri, Jun 17, 2005 at 03:58:35AM +1000, Daniel Stone wrote:
> Hoary (like sarge) is built against 2.3.2.
>
> Breezy (like current sid) is built against 2.3.5.
No, 2.3.5 is still in experimental.
--
Daniel Jacobowitz
CodeSourcery, LLC
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a sub
* Daniel Stone:
> Breezy (like current sid) is built against 2.3.5.
Current sid on which platform?
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On 6/17/05, Ian Murdock <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On 6/16/05, Michael K. Edwards <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Speaking as someone with no Ubuntu affiliation (and IANADD either), I
> > think that statement is based on a somewhat shallow analysis of how
> > glibc is handled. [...]
>
> I don't d
On Fri, Jun 17, 2005 at 01:55:57PM -0500, Ian Murdock wrote:
> I don't doubt there were changes, even some worthwhile changes,
> between the version of libc in sarge and the versions in
> hoary/breezy. My question is: Are the changes worth breaking
> compatibility? It's a cost/benefit thing. And
On 6/16/05, Michael K. Edwards <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On 6/16/05, Ian Murdock <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > glibc. Shipping X.org and GNOME 2.10 adds value, since sarge doesn't
> > ship them. Shipping glibc 2.6.5 vs. glibc 2.6.2 just adds
> > incompatibilities.
>
> Speaking as someone with
On Fri, 2005-06-17 at 09:32 +0100, Andrew Suffield wrote:
> On Fri, Jun 17, 2005 at 12:15:25AM -0700, Steve Langasek wrote:
> > On Fri, Jun 17, 2005 at 08:07:34AM +0100, Andrew Suffield wrote:
> > > On Fri, Jun 17, 2005 at 04:26:36AM +0100, Scott James Remnant wrote:
> > > > On Thu, 2005-06-16 at
On Fri, Jun 17, 2005 at 12:15:25AM -0700, Steve Langasek wrote:
> On Fri, Jun 17, 2005 at 08:07:34AM +0100, Andrew Suffield wrote:
> > On Fri, Jun 17, 2005 at 04:26:36AM +0100, Scott James Remnant wrote:
> > > On Thu, 2005-06-16 at 17:20 -0700, Steve Langasek wrote:
>
> > > > So, maybe it's time t
On Fri, Jun 17, 2005 at 08:07:34AM +0100, Andrew Suffield wrote:
> On Fri, Jun 17, 2005 at 04:26:36AM +0100, Scott James Remnant wrote:
> > On Thu, 2005-06-16 at 17:20 -0700, Steve Langasek wrote:
> > > So, maybe it's time to revisit the weaknesses of the shlibs system,
> > > particularly as they
On Fri, Jun 17, 2005 at 04:26:36AM +0100, Scott James Remnant wrote:
> On Thu, 2005-06-16 at 17:20 -0700, Steve Langasek wrote:
>
> > So, maybe it's time to revisit the weaknesses of the shlibs system,
> > particularly as they apply to glibc. Scott James Remnant had done some
> > poking in this a
On Fri, Jun 17, 2005 at 04:26:36AM +0100, Scott James Remnant wrote:
> On Thu, 2005-06-16 at 17:20 -0700, Steve Langasek wrote:
> > So, maybe it's time to revisit the weaknesses of the shlibs system,
> > particularly as they apply to glibc. Scott James Remnant had done some
> > poking in this are
On Thu, 2005-06-16 at 17:20 -0700, Steve Langasek wrote:
> So, maybe it's time to revisit the weaknesses of the shlibs system,
> particularly as they apply to glibc. Scott James Remnant had done some
> poking in this area about a year ago, which involved tracking when
> individual symbols were ad
On 6/16/05, Steve Langasek <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Thu, Jun 16, 2005 at 04:03:32PM -0700, Michael K. Edwards wrote:
> > On the Ubuntu side, divergences from the last Debian glibc drop that
> > was merged into hoary (2.3.2.ds1-20) include subtle but important
> > fixes to NPTL/TLS (with part
Ian Murdock writes:
> On 6/16/05, Daniel Stone <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Hoary (like sarge) is built against 2.3.2.
> >
> > Breezy (like current sid) is built against 2.3.5.
>
> Why?
- Ubuntu supports its powerpc users with a ppc64 toolchain and kernels.
- Ubuntu does toolchain upgrades at
On Thu, Jun 16, 2005 at 04:03:32PM -0700, Michael K. Edwards wrote:
> On 6/16/05, Ian Murdock <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > glibc. Shipping X.org and GNOME 2.10 adds value, since sarge doesn't
> > ship them. Shipping glibc 2.6.5 vs. glibc 2.6.2 just adds
> > incompatibilities.
> Speaking as someo
Michael K. Edwards writes:
> In general, it's not trivial to set up a build environment that
> reliably produces binary packages that are installable on both sarge
> and hoary. (I happen to have such an environment at work, based on a
> part-careful-part-lucky snapshot of sid, but it's not somethi
On 6/16/05, Matthias Klose <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Python is basic for Ubuntu. Given the long freeze of sarge, Debian had
> to support 2.1 (jython), 2.2 (for zope 2.6) and 2.3 for sarge. I'm
> happy we did have a possibility to ship 2.4.1 with sarge. Maybe not
> with the best packaging, but it
On 6/16/05, Ian Murdock <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> glibc. Shipping X.org and GNOME 2.10 adds value, since sarge doesn't
> ship them. Shipping glibc 2.6.5 vs. glibc 2.6.2 just adds
> incompatibilities.
Speaking as someone with no Ubuntu affiliation (and IANADD either), I
think that statement is b
Ian Murdock wrote:
> On 6/16/05, Daniel Stone <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > I strongly suspect they're
> > > more interested in your X.org and GNOME 2.10. Given
> > > that, a lot of this divergence seems pretty gratutious to me.
> >
> > Yes, these are both very interesting to users.
> >
> > Wh
On 6/16/05, Daniel Stone <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > I strongly suspect they're
> > more interested in your X.org and GNOME 2.10. Given
> > that, a lot of this divergence seems pretty gratutious to me.
>
> Yes, these are both very interesting to users.
>
> Which 'divergence' do you mean when y
On 6/16/05, Daniel Stone <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Hoary (like sarge) is built against 2.3.2.
>
> Breezy (like current sid) is built against 2.3.5.
Why?
--
Ian Murdock
317-578-8882 (office)
http://www.progeny.com/
http://ianmurdock.com/
"A nerd is someone who uses a telephone to talk to oth
Daniel Stone wrote:
> libc6 added interfaces between 2.3.2 and 2.3.5 and made several other
> major changes, so all packages built with .5 depend on .5 or above,
> in case you use one of the new interfaces.
>
> A binary built with 2.3.2 can run with .5, but a binary built with .5
> can't necessari
On 6/16/05, Daniel Stone <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Thu, Jun 16, 2005 at 12:54:08PM -0500, Ian Murdock wrote:
> > Daniel Stone wrote:
> > > libc6 added interfaces between 2.3.2 and 2.3.5 and made several other
> > > major changes, so all packages built with .5 depend on .5 or above,
> > > in c
On Thu, Jun 16, 2005 at 12:54:08PM -0500, Ian Murdock wrote:
> Daniel Stone wrote:
> > libc6 added interfaces between 2.3.2 and 2.3.5 and made several other
> > major changes, so all packages built with .5 depend on .5 or above,
> > in case you use one of the new interfaces.
> >
> > A binary built
56 matches
Mail list logo
