Re: Adding support for LZIP to dpkg, using that instead of xz, archive wide

2015-06-14 Thread Thomas Goirand
Guillem, First, thanks for your reply and taking the time to reply on every point. This really is helpful. While I believe all of your argumentation is correct, I am still not convince about the reproducibility, which is my main issue here. Could you please reply to that point, and that one only?

Is the Debian dependency system broken? (wget vs libgnutls-deb0-28)

2015-06-14 Thread Vincent Lefevre
Normally, a well-designed dependency system should make sure that the user cannot install an incorrect combination of packages (avoiding segmentation faults and internal errors), e.g. during a partial upgrade. But it appears that this is not the case, and users are required to do "apt-get (dist-)up

Re: Adding support for LZIP to dpkg, using that instead of xz, archive wide

2015-06-14 Thread Felipe Sateler
On Sun, 14 Jun 2015 14:08:24 +0200, Thomas Goirand wrote: > And by the way, xz wouldn't be usable with pristine-tar for the same > reason. Ehm. pristine-xz(1) would beg to disagree. In the multimedia team, we use it for over 40 packages (where upstream provides an xz file of course). I guess y

Re: Adding support for LZIP to dpkg, using that instead of xz, archive wide

2015-06-14 Thread Vincent Lefevre
I'm currently using xz for my own files, but... On 2015-06-14 05:46:00 +0200, Guillem Jover wrote: > On Sun, 2015-06-14 at 01:08:29 +0200, Thomas Goirand wrote: > > On 06/13/2015 10:55 AM, Paul Wise wrote: > > > On Sat, Jun 13, 2015 at 4:23 PM, Thomas Goirand wrote: > > >> As a friend puts it: > >

Re: Adding support for LZIP to dpkg, using that instead of xz, archive wide

2015-06-14 Thread Don Armstrong
On Sun, 14 Jun 2015, Thomas Goirand wrote: > Therefore, I'm tempted to raise this to the technical committee > (putting their list as Cc). Does anyone see a reason why I am > mistaking here? Does a patch exist which can enable lz for orig.tar? Otherwise, I guess some of us could be involved to h

Re: Is the Debian dependency system broken? (wget vs libgnutls-deb0-28)

2015-06-14 Thread Dominik George
Hi, > Note that the problem still occurs on an available set of packages: > just start with a Debian/stable system (jessie) and upgrade > libgnutls-deb0-28 to unstable (no dependencies/conflicts will > yield an upgrade of wget, which will occasionally segfault). well, then, obviously, the depende

Re: Is the Debian dependency system broken? (wget vs libgnutls-deb0-28)

2015-06-14 Thread Felipe Sateler
On Sun, 14 Jun 2015 16:03:32 +0200, Vincent Lefevre wrote: > https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=788710#10 > > Note that the problem still occurs on an available set of packages: just > start with a Debian/stable system (jessie) and upgrade libgnutls-deb0-28 > to unstable (no dep

Re: Is the Debian dependency system broken? (wget vs libgnutls-deb0-28)

2015-06-14 Thread Marc Haber
On Sun, 14 Jun 2015 16:03:32 +0200, Vincent Lefevre wrote: >Normally, a well-designed dependency system should make sure that the >user cannot install an incorrect combination of packages (avoiding >segmentation faults and internal errors), e.g. during a partial >upgrade. But it appears that this

Re: Is the Debian dependency system broken? (wget vs libgnutls-deb0-28)

2015-06-14 Thread Simon McVittie
On 14/06/15 17:19, Felipe Sateler wrote: > I think either libgnutls-deb0-28 or libnettle6 should add a Breaks: > libnettle4[1], to ensure all related packages are upgraded in lockstep. This is a recurring (anti-)pattern: * an ABI-stable, high-level library, say libhigh0, links to a lower-level

Re: Is the Debian dependency system broken? (wget vs libgnutls-deb0-28)

2015-06-14 Thread Andreas Metzler
Simon McVittie wrote: [...] > One solution is to give the lower-level library versioned symbols, with > at least one unique version per SONAME. That's how libjpeg and libpng > avoid breaking lots of GUIs every time they bump SONAME, for instance. [...] FWIW this specific combination should not br

Re: ppp plugins and dependencies

2015-06-14 Thread Chris Boot
Hi all, I'm emailing again because I realise I got the per-package QA email addresses all wrong, but also because I don't think we came to any real resolution on this. My original message: On 07/06/15 11:26, Chris Boot wrote: > Hi all, > > Apologies for the long email, but there's a lot to disc

Re: Is the Debian dependency system broken? (wget vs libgnutls-deb0-28)

2015-06-14 Thread Vincent Lefevre
On 2015-06-14 18:43:33 +0200, Marc Haber wrote: > On Sun, 14 Jun 2015 16:03:32 +0200, Vincent Lefevre > wrote: > >Normally, a well-designed dependency system should make sure that the > >user cannot install an incorrect combination of packages (avoiding > >segmentation faults and internal errors),

Re: Is the Debian dependency system broken? (wget vs libgnutls-deb0-28)

2015-06-14 Thread Russ Allbery
Simon McVittie writes: > This is a recurring (anti-)pattern: > * an ABI-stable, high-level library, say libhigh0, links to a > lower-level library, say liblow0 > * we have an ABI transition from liblow0 to liblow1 > * liblow0 and liblow1 do not both have versioned symbols And this point is th

Re: Is the Debian dependency system broken? (wget vs libgnutls-deb0-28)

2015-06-14 Thread Vincent Lefevre
On 2015-06-14 18:15:33 +0200, Dominik George wrote: > Hi, > > > Note that the problem still occurs on an available set of packages: > > just start with a Debian/stable system (jessie) and upgrade > > libgnutls-deb0-28 to unstable (no dependencies/conflicts will > > yield an upgrade of wget, which

Re: Is the Debian dependency system broken? (wget vs libgnutls-deb0-28)

2015-06-14 Thread Michael Banck
Hi Siomn, On Sun, Jun 14, 2015 at 05:50:02PM +0100, Simon McVittie wrote: > On 14/06/15 17:19, Felipe Sateler wrote: > > I think either libgnutls-deb0-28 or libnettle6 should add a Breaks: > > libnettle4[1], to ensure all related packages are upgraded in lockstep. > > This is a recurring (anti-)

Re: Adding support for LZIP to dpkg, using that instead of xz, archive wide

2015-06-14 Thread Guillem Jover
Hi! On Sun, 2015-06-14 at 16:48:21 +0200, Vincent Lefevre wrote: > On 2015-06-14 05:46:00 +0200, Guillem Jover wrote: > > On Sun, 2015-06-14 at 01:08:29 +0200, Thomas Goirand wrote: > > > On 06/13/2015 10:55 AM, Paul Wise wrote: > > > > On Sat, Jun 13, 2015 at 4:23 PM, Thomas Goirand wrote: > > >

Re: Is the Debian dependency system broken? (wget vs libgnutls-deb0-28)

2015-06-14 Thread Neil Williams
On Sun, 14 Jun 2015 13:26:26 -0700 Russ Allbery wrote: > Simon McVittie writes: > > > This is a recurring (anti-)pattern: > > > * an ABI-stable, high-level library, say libhigh0, links to a > > lower-level library, say liblow0 > > * we have an ABI transition from liblow0 to liblow1 > > * lib

Re: Is the Debian dependency system broken? (wget vs libgnutls-deb0-28)

2015-06-14 Thread Niels Thykier
On 2015-06-15 08:04, Neil Williams wrote: > On Sun, 14 Jun 2015 13:26:26 -0700 > Russ Allbery wrote: > >> Simon McVittie writes: >> >>> This is a recurring (anti-)pattern: >> >>> * an ABI-stable, high-level library, say libhigh0, links to a >>> lower-level library, say liblow0 >>> * we have an

Re: ppp plugins and dependencies

2015-06-14 Thread Christoph Biedl
Chris Boot wrote... > The main problem that I see is that there isn't a built-in mechanism for > tracking such a situation, as far as I can tell. There aren't any shared > libraries involved, so I don't have the benefit of sonames, symbols > files or symbol versioning. (...) disclaimer: I might

Bug#788794: ITP: python-suds-jurko -- lightweight SOAP client (Jurko's fork)

2015-06-14 Thread Thomas Goirand
Package: wnpp Severity: wishlist Owner: Thomas Goirand * Package name: python-suds-jurko Version : 0.6 Upstream Author : Jurko Gospodnetic * URL : https://bitbucket.org/jurko/suds * License : LGPL Programming Lang: Python Description : lightweight SOAP