This is a multi-part message in MIME format.
On 26/02/2025 00:10, Guillem Jover wrote:
On Tue, 2025-02-25 at 08:14:52 -0800, Otto Kekäläinen wrote:
$ check_for_missing_breaks_replaces.py -o
${WORKING_DIR}/missing_breaks.xml --changes-file
${WORKING_DIR}/*.changes
[ERROR] Missing Breaks/Replaces found
[ERROR] foo conflicts with bar files: {'/usr/share/man/man8/example.8.gz'}
…and this advice, are not ideal, and can lead to potentially worse problems.
I think the check should be renamed to something like
check-file-conflicts (probably with compat names for existing repos
using the old name). And the advice should probably point to a Wiki
page or similar, where the various cases can be explained, and how to
solve them. For example for conflicting programs with different
interfaces the advice would incur in a policy violation, for conflicts between a current shared library SOVERSION and the one in the archive
with a lower SOVERSION that makes upgrades and transitions harder,
etc.
I suppose there are two main situations:
1) package includes the offending file(s) by mistake, in that case the
fix is to stop distributing the file (and NOT to use Breaks/Replaces)
2) package includes the file(s) for good reason, in that case it's as
Guillem said above
Maybe the error message could clarify for situation 1, something like:
[ERROR] You might want to rename/remove the offending files if that's
suitable
For situation 2, maybe point to Debian Policy:
https://www.debian.org/doc/debian-policy/ch-relationships.html, in
particular sections 7.3, 7.4 and 7.6? Unless there's a better piece of
doc on this topic?
Best,
Arnaud
<!DOCTYPE html>
<html>
<head>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=UTF-8">
</head>
<body>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">On 26/02/2025 00:10, Guillem Jover
wrote:<span style="white-space: pre-wrap">
</span></div>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:
Z735bn-7-8UqoCDp@thunder.hadrons.org">
<pre wrap="" class="moz-quote-pre">On Tue, 2025-02-25 at 08:14:52 -0800, Otto Kekäläinen wrote:
</pre>
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre wrap="" class="moz-quote-pre">$ check_for_missing_breaks_replaces.py -o
${WORKING_DIR}/missing_breaks.xml --changes-file
${WORKING_DIR}/*.changes
[ERROR] Missing Breaks/Replaces found
[ERROR] foo conflicts with bar files: {'/usr/share/man/man8/example.8.gz'} </pre>
</blockquote>
<pre wrap="" class="moz-quote-pre">
…and this advice, are not ideal, and can lead to potentially worse
problems.
I think the check should be renamed to something like
check-file-conflicts (probably with compat names for existing repos
using the old name). And the advice should probably point to a Wiki
page or similar, where the various cases can be explained, and how to
solve them. For example for conflicting programs with different
interfaces the advice would incur in a policy violation, for conflicts
between a current shared library SOVERSION and the one in the archive
with a lower SOVERSION that makes upgrades and transitions harder,
etc.</pre>
</blockquote>
<p>I suppose there are two main situations:</p>
<p>1) package includes the offending file(s) by mistake, in that
case the fix is to stop distributing the file (and NOT to use
Breaks/Replaces)</p>
<p>2) package includes the file(s) for good reason, in that case
it's as Guillem said above</p>
<p>Maybe the error message could clarify for situation 1, something
like:<br>
</p>
<p>> [ERROR] You might want to rename/remove the offending files
if that's suitable<br>
</p>
<p>For situation 2, maybe point to Debian Policy:
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="
https://www.debian.org/doc/debian-policy/ch-relationships.html">https://www.debian.org/doc/debian-policy/ch-relationships.html</a>, in
particular sections 7.3, 7.4 and 7.6? Unless there's a better
piece of doc on this topic?</p>
Best,<br>
Arnaud<br>
<p><br>
</p>
</body>
</html>
--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)