epoch bump request for gnome-calculator

classic Classic list List threaded Threaded
10 messages Options
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

epoch bump request for gnome-calculator

Jeremy Bicha-5
Emailing both debian-devel and the Debian GNOME mailing list.

I am requesting project approval for me to upload gnome-calculator
with an epoch.

Five years ago, gcalctool 6.4 was renamed to gnome-calculator and
renumbered to 3.8. This seemed like a clear case for an epoch since
this was a permanent change in the version numbering scheme.

I made this change in the Debian VCS and uploaded it to Ubuntu. At the
time I did not have upload rights to Debian and Ubuntu has deadlines.

A month later, a Debian GNOME team member recognized that we could use
a dh_gencontrol hack [1] to only add the epoch to the gcalctool
transitional package and we didn't need an epoch for gnome-calculator.
Similarly, we could have used this hack for many of the gnome-games
packages when they were split into separate source packages but we
didn't because we uploaded them before we made this change. (The
version numbering didn't change but gnome-games had an epoch we didn't
need to carry to the new packages.)

More recently, I have worked to reduce the difference between Debian
and Ubuntu packaging for many GNOME packages. It gets very tedious to
need to upload gnome-calculator in Debian and then do a separate
upload in Ubuntu (along with all the required Vcs merging, updating
and tagging) just to add the epoch in Ubuntu. It would be a lot nicer
if I could just sync the Debian package to Ubuntu.

So is it appropriate to bump an epoch in Debian to match an important
downstream's epoch?

[1] Current example of the hack:
https://salsa.debian.org/fonts-team/fonts-ubuntu/blob/debian/unstable/debian/rules

Thanks,
Jeremy Bicha

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: epoch bump request for gnome-calculator

Jonas Smedegaard-2
Quoting Jeremy Bicha (2018-09-26 15:47:38)

> Emailing both debian-devel and the Debian GNOME mailing list.
>
> I am requesting project approval for me to upload gnome-calculator
> with an epoch.
>
> Five years ago, gcalctool 6.4 was renamed to gnome-calculator and
> renumbered to 3.8. This seemed like a clear case for an epoch since
> this was a permanent change in the version numbering scheme.
>
> I made this change in the Debian VCS and uploaded it to Ubuntu. At the
> time I did not have upload rights to Debian and Ubuntu has deadlines.
>
> A month later, a Debian GNOME team member recognized that we could use
> a dh_gencontrol hack [1] to only add the epoch to the gcalctool
> transitional package and we didn't need an epoch for gnome-calculator.
> Similarly, we could have used this hack for many of the gnome-games
> packages when they were split into separate source packages but we
> didn't because we uploaded them before we made this change. (The
> version numbering didn't change but gnome-games had an epoch we didn't
> need to carry to the new packages.)
>
> More recently, I have worked to reduce the difference between Debian
> and Ubuntu packaging for many GNOME packages. It gets very tedious to
> need to upload gnome-calculator in Debian and then do a separate
> upload in Ubuntu (along with all the required Vcs merging, updating
> and tagging) just to add the epoch in Ubuntu. It would be a lot nicer
> if I could just sync the Debian package to Ubuntu.
>
> So is it appropriate to bump an epoch in Debian to match an important
> downstream's epoch?
Please no: Don't adopt in Debian mistakes done in downstream distros.


 - Jonas

--
 * Jonas Smedegaard - idealist & Internet-arkitekt
 * Tlf.: +45 40843136  Website: http://dr.jones.dk/

 [x] quote me freely  [ ] ask before reusing  [ ] keep private

signature.asc (849 bytes) Download Attachment
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: epoch bump request for gnome-calculator

Jonathan Carter (highvoltage)-2
Hey Jonas

On 26/09/2018 16:59, Jonas Smedegaard wrote:

>> More recently, I have worked to reduce the difference between Debian
>> and Ubuntu packaging for many GNOME packages. It gets very tedious to
>> need to upload gnome-calculator in Debian and then do a separate
>> upload in Ubuntu (along with all the required Vcs merging, updating
>> and tagging) just to add the epoch in Ubuntu. It would be a lot nicer
>> if I could just sync the Debian package to Ubuntu.
>>
>> So is it appropriate to bump an epoch in Debian to match an important
>> downstream's epoch?
>
> Please no: Don't adopt in Debian mistakes done in downstream distros.

I appreciate where your sentiment regarding this issue comes from, but I
think it comes across as a bit snide.

Jeremy has pulled a lot of weight making GNOME a first class citizen in
Debian, and I think you should rather look at it from the perspective
that a DD is spending a lot of time on duplicate work that effectively
ends up being busy work.

No one like epoch bumps but I know Jeremy wouldn't suggest anything
without spending a considerable amount of time putting thought in to it.

Personally I think you should reconsider before shooting off a 'no' so
quickly. And on that note I also agree with you that Debian shouldn't
pay for downstream mistakes, but this is clearly a bit different and a
bit more than that.

-Jonathan

--
  ⢀⣴⠾⠻⢶⣦⠀  Jonathan Carter (highvoltage) <jcc>
  ⣾⠁⢠⠒⠀⣿⡁  Debian Developer - https://wiki.debian.org/highvoltage
  ⢿⡄⠘⠷⠚⠋   https://debian.org | https://jonathancarter.org
  ⠈⠳⣄⠀⠀⠀⠀  Be Bold. Be brave. Debian has got your back.

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: epoch bump request for gnome-calculator

Jonas Smedegaard-2
Hi Jonathan, and Jeremy and others,

Quoting Jonathan Carter (2018-09-26 20:45:13)

> On 26/09/2018 16:59, Jonas Smedegaard wrote:
>>> More recently, I have worked to reduce the difference between Debian
>>> and Ubuntu packaging for many GNOME packages. It gets very tedious
>>> to need to upload gnome-calculator in Debian and then do a separate
>>> upload in Ubuntu (along with all the required Vcs merging, updating
>>> and tagging) just to add the epoch in Ubuntu. It would be a lot
>>> nicer if I could just sync the Debian package to Ubuntu.
>>>
>>> So is it appropriate to bump an epoch in Debian to match an
>>> important downstream's epoch?
>>
>> Please no: Don't adopt in Debian mistakes done in downstream distros.
>
> I appreciate where your sentiment regarding this issue comes from, but
> I think it comes across as a bit snide.
>
> Jeremy has pulled a lot of weight making GNOME a first class citizen
> in Debian, and I think you should rather look at it from the
> perspective that a DD is spending a lot of time on duplicate work that
> effectively ends up being busy work.
>
> No one like epoch bumps but I know Jeremy wouldn't suggest anything
> without spending a considerable amount of time putting thought in to
> it.
>
> Personally I think you should reconsider before shooting off a 'no' so
> quickly. And on that note I also agree with you that Debian shouldn't
> pay for downstream mistakes, but this is clearly a bit different and a
> bit more than that.
I apologize if coming across as snide.  Or rude or insensitive.

I have no doubt that Jeremy has thought through his question and the
options available to him in this matter, and that Jeremy has done a
great deal of good work for Debian and is likely to continue to do so.

My response was not intended as some kind of personal attack on Jeremy,
it was solely uttered out of concern for Debian.

Please do believe and respect that I have _also_ given this matter quite
some thought.


Regards,

 - Jonas

--
 * Jonas Smedegaard - idealist & Internet-arkitekt
 * Tlf.: +45 40843136  Website: http://dr.jones.dk/

 [x] quote me freely  [ ] ask before reusing  [ ] keep private

signature.asc (849 bytes) Download Attachment
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: epoch bump request for gnome-calculator

Paul Wise via nm
In reply to this post by Jeremy Bicha-5
On Wed, Sep 26, 2018 at 9:48 PM Jeremy Bicha wrote:

> A month later, a Debian GNOME team member recognized that we could use
> a dh_gencontrol hack [1] to only add the epoch to the gcalctool
> transitional package and we didn't need an epoch for gnome-calculator.

I wouldn't characterise this as a hack, it is a legitimate way to do things.

> More recently, I have worked to reduce the difference between Debian
> and Ubuntu packaging for many GNOME packages.

FTR, this is currently this set of changes:

https://patches.ubuntu.com/g/gnome-calculator/gnome-calculator_1:3.30.0-1ubuntu1.patch

> So is it appropriate to bump an epoch in Debian to match an important
> downstream's epoch?

An alternative might be for Launchpad to allow whitelisted downgrades
of source packages (dropping the epoch) (zero idea how feasible that
is) and then a dpkg-vendor conditional in debian/rules to re-add the
epoch to the binary packages when they are being built for Ubuntu.
This would result in zero change to Debian binary packages, Ubuntu
binary packages to continue to use the epoch, the source package to be
in sync and require zero busywork in Ubuntu and everyone should be
happy (except maybe the Launchpad team).

--
bye,
pabs

https://wiki.debian.org/PaulWise

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: epoch bump request for gnome-calculator

Jeremy Bicha-5
On Wed, Sep 26, 2018 at 9:33 PM Paul Wise <[hidden email]> wrote:
> FTR, this is currently this set of changes:
>
> https://patches.ubuntu.com/g/gnome-calculator/gnome-calculator_1:3.30.0-1ubuntu1.patch

Yes, I felt my email was getting a bit long. Ubuntu's gnome-calculator
now has some patches that depend on proposed gnome-shell search
provider improvements. There's a bit of a backlog for Ubuntu's
gnome-shell patches getting reviewed in GNOME. So there is a temporary
diff but there was no diff except for the epoch for the 18.04 LTS
release.

> An alternative might be for Launchpad to allow whitelisted downgrades

I appreciate your thinking of possible solutions, but my understanding
is that Canonical isn't investing in any more Launchpad work than is
necessary. And it's rare for anyone else to work on Launchpad.

Thanks,
Jeremy Bicha

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: epoch bump request for gnome-calculator

Andreas Henriksson-3
In reply to this post by Jeremy Bicha-5
Hi Jeremy,

My comments below for what it's worth. You should likely not
take anything I say too seriously, but maybe I happen to mention
something that can be food for thought.

On Wed, Sep 26, 2018 at 09:47:38AM -0400, Jeremy Bicha wrote:
> Emailing both debian-devel and the Debian GNOME mailing list.
>
> I am requesting project approval for me to upload gnome-calculator
> with an epoch.
>
> Five years ago, gcalctool 6.4 was renamed to gnome-calculator and
> renumbered to 3.8. This seemed like a clear case for an epoch since
> this was a permanent change in the version numbering scheme.

For me, wherever a (source and binary) package is removed it's
a clear case that it's an opportunity to *get rid* of epochs.
Upstream renaming things are a rare opportunity and should
be utilized!

>
> I made this change in the Debian VCS and uploaded it to Ubuntu. At the
> time I did not have upload rights to Debian and Ubuntu has deadlines.
>
> A month later, a Debian GNOME team member recognized that we could use
> a dh_gencontrol hack [1] to only add the epoch to the gcalctool
> transitional package and we didn't need an epoch for gnome-calculator.
> Similarly, we could have used this hack for many of the gnome-games
> packages when they were split into separate source packages but we
> didn't because we uploaded them before we made this change. (The
> version numbering didn't change but gnome-games had an epoch we didn't
> need to carry to the new packages.)

I feel like I was probably the guilty person here. Possibly having
higher-than-average dislike for epochs and also being clueless
on ubuntu deadlines. I feel like rushing an epoch bump in because
of a deadline is a bad idea, which you are probably well aware of
as of now.

(And yes, there where probably more cases this should have been
used but once uploaded the window of opportunity to eliminate the
epochs are gone and we have to wait, pray and hope that upstream
renames things again some time in the future.)

Also Debhelper commands are overridable by design and their individual
arguments are documented in their separate manual pages. This should
be leveraged when ever it's the appropriate thing to do (and avoided
when it's not).

>
> More recently, I have worked to reduce the difference between Debian
> and Ubuntu packaging for many GNOME packages. It gets very tedious to
> need to upload gnome-calculator in Debian and then do a separate
> upload in Ubuntu (along with all the required Vcs merging, updating
> and tagging) just to add the epoch in Ubuntu. It would be a lot nicer
> if I could just sync the Debian package to Ubuntu.
>
> So is it appropriate to bump an epoch in Debian to match an important
> downstream's epoch?

I understand this is annoying for you to have to carry forever in
ubuntu, so I'm willing to look the other way with one condition:
You make sure to discuss policies on the ubuntu side to take
extra care to not needlessly introduce epoch bumps which you then
later come to debian to discuss because it's causing you pain in
ubuntu. If you ever bump epoch in ubuntu without having done
the full epoch-dance in debian and waited for it to actually be
uploaded to the debian archive before you upload the epoch bump
in ubuntu, then you agree to handle it for all eternity on the
ubuntu side when needed.

As an alternative suggestion, why isn't it possible to simply
get rid of the annoying part by specifying a vendor-condition
in debian/rules and apply "the hack" to all binary packages
when building on ubuntu (and on transitional packages only
when building on debian)?
Carrying this ubuntu-specific lines in debian/rules even in
debian would likely be something that people who only care
for debian could more easily accept.

eg.
ifeq ($(DEB_VENDOR),Ubuntu)
  <insert "the hack" here>
endif


>
> [1] Current example of the hack:
> https://salsa.debian.org/fonts-team/fonts-ubuntu/blob/debian/unstable/debian/rules
>
> Thanks,
> Jeremy Bicha
>

Regards,
Andreas Henriksson
(who hasn't mastered the art of writing short mails yet either)

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: epoch bump request for gnome-calculator

Raphael Hertzog-3
In reply to this post by Jeremy Bicha-5
On Wed, 26 Sep 2018, Jeremy Bicha wrote:
> So is it appropriate to bump an epoch in Debian to match an important
> downstream's epoch?

Yes. Precisely because there is collaboration between both sides on those
packages.

The attitude "we don't care of mistakes made by derivatives" is
counter-productive. In the context of packages shared by Kali and Debian,
there have been times where I requested an upload on the Debian side
to increase the version to something bigger than what we had in Kali
so that we could sync (it was not an epoch bump, mainly a different way
to name git snapshots IIRC) and the maintainer accepted.

On the opposite side, Debian has been importing packages from Kali and
sometimes the maintainer picked the same .orig.tar.gz with a different
checksum and this made it impossible to sync the package (reprepro like
dak can't deal with different copies of the same file). I had to remove
all copies of the source package in Kali (including snapshots that should
not be modified) to be able to import. I could have requested the Debian
maintainer to change the upstream version (say with a +ds suffix) but I
did not do that.

I cut some slack to the careless Debian maintainer and I expect them to
cut some slack to us as derivative as well when we need some help to make
our life easier.

Cheers,
--
Raphaël Hertzog ◈ Debian Developer

Support Debian LTS: https://www.freexian.com/services/debian-lts.html
Learn to master Debian: https://debian-handbook.info/get/

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: epoch bump request for gnome-calculator

gregor herrmann-3
On Thu, 27 Sep 2018 12:49:38 +0200, Raphael Hertzog wrote:

> On Wed, 26 Sep 2018, Jeremy Bicha wrote:
> > So is it appropriate to bump an epoch in Debian to match an important
> > downstream's epoch?
> Yes. Precisely because there is collaboration between both sides on those
> packages.
[..]
 
I agree.

While epochs are nasty and <yada-yada other all known disadvantages>,
having this one more doesn't really hurt anyone and makes a
maintainer's life easier. Therefore I'm willing to hold my nose,
shrug, and look the other way :)


Cheers,
gregor

--
 .''`.  https://info.comodo.priv.at -- Debian Developer https://www.debian.org
 : :' : OpenPGP fingerprint D1E1 316E 93A7 60A8 104D  85FA BB3A 6801 8649 AA06
 `. `'  Member VIBE!AT & SPI Inc. -- Supporter Free Software Foundation Europe
   `-   NP: Zueriwest: Zorro

signature.asc (981 bytes) Download Attachment
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: epoch bump request for gnome-calculator

Holger Levsen-2
On Thu, Sep 27, 2018 at 10:50:51PM +0200, gregor herrmann wrote:

> > Yes. Precisely because there is collaboration between both sides on those
> > packages.
> [..]
>  
> I agree.
>
> While epochs are nasty and <yada-yada other all known disadvantages>,
> having this one more doesn't really hurt anyone and makes a
> maintainer's life easier. Therefore I'm willing to hold my nose,
> shrug, and look the other way :)
Yup, I agree.


--
cheers,
        Holger

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
               holger@(debian|reproducible-builds|layer-acht).org
       PGP fingerprint: B8BF 5413 7B09 D35C F026 FE9D 091A B856 069A AA1C

signature.asc (849 bytes) Download Attachment