Path: csiph.com!aioe.org!news.servidellagleba.it!bofh.it!news.nic.it!robomod From: Markus Koschany Newsgroups: linux.debian.maint.java Subject: Re: The transition to BND 2.x Date: Tue, 16 Jun 2015 20:40:01 +0200 Message-ID: References: X-Original-To: debian-java@lists.debian.org Old-Return-Path: X-Amavis-Spam-Status: No, score=-12 tagged_above=-10000 required=5.3 tests=[BAYES_00=-2, LDO_WHITELIST=-5, PGPSIGNATURE=-5] autolearn=ham X-Policyd-Weight: using cached result; rate: -6.1 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:31.0) Gecko/20100101 Icedove/31.7.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha512; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="GesXKrKe1HHOCGG2rX90WcSg7LBhCuOWf" X-Sa-Exim-Scanned: No (on richard.fcube.de); SAEximRunCond expanded to false X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/18404 List-ID: List-URL: Approved: robomod@news.nic.it Lines: 107 Organization: linux.* mail to news gateway Sender: robomod@news.nic.it X-Original-Date: Tue, 16 Jun 2015 20:37:16 +0200 X-Original-Message-ID: <55806CDC.6080503@gambaru.de> X-Original-References: <5572EB15.7020200@gambaru.de> <557967E8.5070006@apache.org> <5579857D.2040402@gambaru.de> <557AE66F.9060606@apache.org> <557D773D.7000601@gambaru.de> <557F4EB1.1020607@apache.org> <558050BF.6060806@apache.org> Xref: aioe.org linux.debian.maint.java:8096 This is an OpenPGP/MIME signed message (RFC 4880 and 3156) --GesXKrKe1HHOCGG2rX90WcSg7LBhCuOWf Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On 16.06.2015 18:37, Emmanuel Bourg wrote: > Le 16/06/2015 00:16, Emmanuel Bourg a =C3=A9crit : >=20 >> Ok I'll upload it. However I'll copy the bnd repository instead to kee= p >> the packaging history. >=20 > I uploaded the bnd1.50 package, it installs only versioned jar files > (there is no Maven artifact with a 'debian' or '1.x' version, and the > jar files in /usr/share/java are suffixed with the version 1.50.0). The= > command line tool is invoked with 'bnd-1.50'. Thanks for the upload. However I feel that this is another "double work" situation again. (you probably remember the javahelper case). In my opinion we should have continued to work on bnd1. I am always open for improvement suggestions and of course I would have fixed all remaining issues myself. I have put some thought in bnd1, for example my package was co-installable whereas bnd-1.50 breaks/replaces bnd <=3D 2 now. I don't expect any fatal problems with this decision but this was also true for bnd1. I also think that we don't really need the packaging history because it is clear to everyone that the bnd repository contains all historical information. I would treat bnd1/bnd1.50 simply as a new package with a clean Git history whose sole goal is to simplify the transition to bnd2 and then we should get rid of it as soon as possible. There is no need for fancy Git magic. > I noticed an issue with the Git repository of the bnd package, the > upstream version 1.50.0 has been imported on the top of the version > 2.1.0. On the upstream branch, the files for the version 2.1.0 come > before the files for the version 1.50.0, and on the master branch the > changes from the experimental 2.1.0 branch have been merged and then > replaced with the changes for bnd/1.50.0-9. >=20 > I suggest to clean this by: > 1. reverting the master branch before the merge commit of the > experimental branch, and reapplying the changes from bnd/1.50.0-9 > 2. rebasing the experimental branch and remove the merge commit from th= e > upstream branch > 3. removing the upstream imports on the upstream branch for both versio= ns > 4. merging the experimental branch on the master branch >=20 > This will leave an empty upstream branch, and a master branch ready for= > bnd 2.1.0. The next person working on the package will just have to > reimport the upstream tarball (that may be a more recent version too). The issue with bnd's upstream branch was that someone forgot to push the old 1.50 upstream sources when bnd 1.50 was released. Miguel was the first one who created an initial upstream branch for bnd and pushed the 2.1.0 sources. I don't perceive the current situation as an issue because Git master reflects the current state of affairs in unstable and you still can work with bnd 2.1.0 on the experimental branch. So I am confident everything will be resolved when we eventually upload 2.1.0-2 to unstable and re-import everything with gbp import-dsc on Git master. Regards, Markus --GesXKrKe1HHOCGG2rX90WcSg7LBhCuOWf Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc" Content-Description: OpenPGP digital signature Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="signature.asc" -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v2 iQJ8BAEBCgBmBQJVgGzfXxSAAAAAAC4AKGlzc3Vlci1mcHJAbm90YXRpb25zLm9w ZW5wZ3AuZmlmdGhob3JzZW1hbi5uZXRBQ0YzRDA4OEVGMzJFREVGNkExQTgzNUZE OUFEMTRCOTUxM0I1MUU0AAoJENmtFLlRO1Hk+f8QALSrchMYJ5p7SGN6Q5CbCFOa 7JBAy9xflV+55m465GnAHytC/wenpmiT8aWjY8O4PO4PFkM20hD2+z7RRomD0lYL 19111S+yaPQt925JeQixIf9ZS0lrKCNzrQpyLpJOAcKbuAfpaexK5wqJGiHFdnWv srdF2JIW3RkeOsk+gygJ40KSZvJNCNHqHn6MH+pPNAewszjMD26ucUdT7HBM1l4s VljtjDpOYzm3T3JLHYLA7r+3Z/aviTPGSGnTYXOGBKHIp8HsdWUred+CTpCf12cH 5kHhZOoTsguBetZiVoRTfGmeUFHbDaql3ED3b4YN3g/CLyMxOzbxfgg+xSCo6xmO AkZILRFDBk2fKza0hds183uDOmQrHq411Z7a9utLcHXwg96y2MeGCdZisX0IwZeO ckvUF/jmrw+9eUXSKKRODTReM1weFQwtbVupVkNSUurQEINWmi1FmWsGhTyMMejJ 9PtRAKGC4SlmHYKJbVam5/1D5QnKQo1IkrTBYWxXhNS5F4KXD4EyFrmtxC2WD7Ug K9kNitzgBK6aomsSXa+t5O6q+skk+PMCmMwgZVEHEQ91ZCfbd1dxyKEPgg7//vE2 ZhyNsGs/1bVZnBNnHVt5s/Ffid32OOg6qeh+E3joAdcqgqNsKACSoN/iea69qnNE CYDPdxSXFp6OXUdcwaP+ =1YKt -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --GesXKrKe1HHOCGG2rX90WcSg7LBhCuOWf-- -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-java-REQUEST@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org Archive: https://lists.debian.org/55806CDC.6080503@gambaru.de