Opinions sougth: mlocate appropriate for Priority: standard? - Debian

This is a discussion on Opinions sougth: mlocate appropriate for Priority: standard? - Debian ; Adeodato Simó wrote: > * Andreas Metzler [Wed, 14 Nov 2007 19:32:47 +0100]: >> I thought Breaks was not yet handled by dpkg/apt and was therefore >> pointless? > > apt supports it since 0.7.0. I thought we weren't supposed ...

+ Reply to Thread
Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 1 2 3 LastLast
Results 21 to 40 of 43

Thread: Opinions sougth: mlocate appropriate for Priority: standard?

  1. Re: Opinions sought: mlocate appropriate for Priority: standard?

    Adeodato Simó wrote:

    > * Andreas Metzler [Wed, 14 Nov 2007 19:32:47 +0100]:


    >> I thought Breaks was not yet handled by dpkg/apt and was therefore
    >> pointless?

    >
    > apt supports it since 0.7.0.


    I thought we weren't supposed to use it until apt 0.7.0 reaches stable?

    --

    Felipe Sateler


    --
    To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-REQUEST@lists.debian.org
    with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org

  2. can Breaks be used already? (was Re: Opinions sought: mlocate appropriate for Priority: standard?)

    * Felipe Sateler [Wed, 14 Nov 2007 20:06:12 -0300]:
    > Adeodato Simó wrote:
    > > * Andreas Metzler [Wed, 14 Nov 2007 19:32:47 +0100]:


    > >> I thought Breaks was not yet handled by dpkg/apt and was therefore
    > >> pointless?


    > > apt supports it since 0.7.0.


    > I thought we weren't supposed to use it until apt 0.7.0 reaches stable?


    Hm, good point. But is this true, given that the release notes always
    recommend upgrading apt and aptitude prior to performing dist-upgrade?

    Cheers,

    --
    Adeodato Simó dato at net.com.org.es
    Debian Developer adeodato at debian.org

    Never let your sense of morals get in the way of doing what's right.
    -- Isaac Asimov


    --
    To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-REQUEST@lists.debian.org
    with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org

  3. Re: can Breaks be used already? (was Re: Opinions sought: mlocate appropriate for Priority: standard?)

    On Thu, Nov 15, 2007 at 11:09:06AM +0100, Adeodato Sim wrote:
    > * Felipe Sateler [Wed, 14 Nov 2007 20:06:12 -0300]:
    > > Adeodato Sim wrote:
    > > > * Andreas Metzler [Wed, 14 Nov 2007 19:32:47 +0100]:


    > > >> I thought Breaks was not yet handled by dpkg/apt and was therefore
    > > >> pointless?


    > > > apt supports it since 0.7.0.


    > > I thought we weren't supposed to use it until apt 0.7.0 reaches stable?


    > Hm, good point. But is this true, given that the release notes always
    > recommend upgrading apt and aptitude prior to performing dist-upgrade?


    I think you mean that Ian Jackson always recommends upgrading apt and
    aptitude prior to performing dist-upgrade. The release notes haven't
    always recommended this, because in the past there have been occasions where
    doing so ran into problems related to glibc/kernel circular deps.

    --
    Steve Langasek Give me a lever long enough and a Free OS
    Debian Developer to set it on, and I can move the world.
    vorlon@debian.org http://www.debian.org/


    --
    To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-REQUEST@lists.debian.org
    with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org

  4. Re: Opinions sought: mlocate appropriate for Priority: standard?

    Adeodato Sim wrote:
    > * Andreas Metzler [Wed, 14 Nov 2007 19:32:47 +0100]:

    [...]
    >> How does mlocate.updatedb handle updatedb.conf? Does the binary read
    >> the file on every execution or does it also rely on wrapper script
    >> (the cron job) to source it? findutils works the latter way and the
    >> file is therefore misnamed, it is find-daily.defaults, not
    >> updatedb.conf.


    > The updatedb binary directly reads updatedb.conf.


    >> You do not plan on sharing the configuration file between packages, do
    >> you?


    > Well, what do you suggest? How does dpkg react when unpacking a conffile
    > that is the conffile of another package?

    [...]

    Evil stuff. Shared configuration files cannot be shipped in
    (non-conflicting) packages, it needs to be handled differently (See
    policy 10.7.4.) I would propose to simply have the GNU locate package
    use find-daily.defaults instead of /etc/updatedb.conf.
    cu andreas

    --
    `What a good friend you are to him, Dr. Maturin. His other friends are
    so grateful to you.'
    `I sew his ears on from time to time, sure'


    --
    To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-REQUEST@lists.debian.org
    with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org

  5. Re: Opinions sought: mlocate appropriate for Priority: standard?

    * Andreas Metzler [Thu, 15 Nov 2007 19:43:57 +0100]:

    > I would propose to simply have the GNU locate package
    > use find-daily.defaults instead of /etc/updatedb.conf.


    Sounds good. How will you handle the migration from /etc/updatedb.conf?
    How about rm'ing from findutils postinst if the md5sum matches, and
    moving it to find-daily.defaults if it doesn't? (Since dpkg will not
    remove disappeared conffiles itself.)

    And, for the same reason, remove /etc/cron.daily/find?

    Cheers,

    --
    Adeodato Simó dato at net.com.org.es
    Debian Developer adeodato at debian.org

    Listening to: Julio Bustamante - Amigo de las hadas


    --
    To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-REQUEST@lists.debian.org
    with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org

  6. Re: Opinions sought: mlocate appropriate for Priority: standard?

    >>>>> Adeodato Simó writes:

    >>>> Imho this problem is not one that needs to be solved, if multiple
    >>>> locates are installed, multiple databases should be generated.


    >>> I think differently. Particularly given that findutil's locate can
    >>> be installed only as a dependency of other packages. (If this
    >>> wasn't the case, I'd agree your point of view is valid as well.)
    >>> Did you consider this?


    >> I did consider it, but afaik the pulled-in-by-dependency-szenario is
    >> going to be rare.


    > Well, dlocate has 2500 popcon installations, vs. slocate's 1500. So,
    > I'm still convinced findutil's locate's cron script should either
    > only run if it's the configured locate, *or* not run unless enabled
    > in /etc/default/locate.


    > But it's your package and I know how to disable one script for
    > cron, so I won't mention it further. :-)


    May I suggest a single `update-locate' script, with different
    implementations (`update-locate.findutils', etc.) belonging to
    the same alternatives group as `locate' and `updatedb'? This
    reduces the cron.daily script to a single line of code (though I
    don't know which package to put it in.)

    [...]

  7. Re: Opinions sought: mlocate appropriate for Priority: standard?

    >>>>> Ivan Shmakov writes:
    >>>>> Adeodato Simó writes:


    >>>>> Imho this problem is not one that needs to be solved, if multiple
    >>>>> locates are installed, multiple databases should be generated.


    >>>> I think differently. Particularly given that findutil's locate can
    >>>> be installed only as a dependency of other packages. (If this
    >>>> wasn't the case, I'd agree your point of view is valid as well.)
    >>>> Did you consider this?


    >>> I did consider it, but afaik the pulled-in-by-dependency-szenario
    >>> is going to be rare.


    >> Well, dlocate has 2500 popcon installations, vs. slocate's 1500. So,
    >> I'm still convinced findutil's locate's cron script should either
    >> only run if it's the configured locate, *or* not run unless enabled
    >> in /etc/default/locate.


    >> But it's your package and I know how to disable one script for cron,
    >> so I won't mention it further. :-)


    > May I suggest a single `update-locate' script, with different
    > implementations (`update-locate.findutils', etc.) belonging to the
    > same alternatives group as `locate' and `updatedb'? This reduces the
    > cron.daily script to a single line of code (though I don't know which
    > package to put it in.)


    ... A (to be introduced) locates-common package?

  8. Re: Opinions sought: mlocate appropriate for Priority: standard?

    Ivan Shmakov wrote:
    [...]
    > May I suggest a single `update-locate' script, with different
    > implementations (`update-locate.findutils', etc.) belonging to
    > the same alternatives group as `locate' and `updatedb'? This
    > reduces the cron.daily script to a single line of code (though I
    > don't know which package to put it in.)


    > [...]


    I do not think that would work well, diffrent locates have different
    featuresets (and options).
    cu andreas

    --
    `What a good friend you are to him, Dr. Maturin. His other friends are
    so grateful to you.'
    `I sew his ears on from time to time, sure'


    --
    To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-REQUEST@lists.debian.org
    with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org

  9. Re: Opinions sought: mlocate appropriate for Priority: standard?

    >>>>> Andreas Metzler writes:

    >> May I suggest a single `update-locate' script, with different
    >> implementations (`update-locate.findutils', etc.) belonging to the
    >> same alternatives group as `locate' and `updatedb'? This reduces
    >> the cron.daily script to a single line of code (though I don't know
    >> which package to put it in.)


    >> [...]


    > I do not think that would work well, diffrent locates have different
    > featuresets (and options).


    It's the precise reason behind having per-locate
    `update-locate.PACKAGE' scripts. Everything required to update
    the database for any given locate (currently in
    /etc/cron.daily/PACKAGE) is to be put into a /usr/sbin/-script
    (/usr/sbin/update-locate.PACKAGE.) Like:

    $ cat /usr/bin/update-locate.slocate
    #! /bin/sh

    if [ -x /usr/bin/slocate ]
    then
    if [ -f /etc/updatedb.conf ]
    then
    /usr/bin/updatedb
    else
    /usr/bin/updatedb -f proc
    fi
    chown root.slocate /var/lib/slocate/slocate.db
    fi
    $ cat /usr/bin/update-locate.findutils
    #! /bin/sh
    #
    # former cron script to update the `locatedb' database.
    #
    # Written by Ian A. Murdock and
    # Kevin Dalley

    LOCALUSER="nobody"
    export LOCALUSER
    if [ -f /etc/updatedb.conf ]; then
    . /etc/updatedb.conf
    fi

    if getent passwd $LOCALUSER > /dev/null ; then
    cd / && nice -n ${NICE:-10} updatedb 2>/dev/null
    else
    echo "User $LOCALUSER does not exist."
    exit 1
    fi
    $

    The cron script, /etc/cron.daily/, then checks whether
    /usr/sbin/update-locate (managed by the alternatives system)
    exists, and, if it is, calls it:

    $ cat /etc/cron.daily/update-locate
    #!/bin/sh
    if [ -x /usr/sbin/update-locate ]; then
    /usr/sbin/update-locate
    fi

    Or am I missing something?


    --
    To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-REQUEST@lists.debian.org
    with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org

  10. Re: Opinions sought: mlocate appropriate for Priority: standard?

    Adeodato Sim wrote:
    > * Andreas Metzler [Thu, 15 Nov 2007 19:43:57 +0100]:
    >> I would propose to simply have the GNU locate package
    >> use find-daily.defaults instead of /etc/updatedb.conf.


    > Sounds good. How will you handle the migration from /etc/updatedb.conf?
    > How about rm'ing from findutils postinst if the md5sum matches, and
    > moving it to find-daily.defaults if it doesn't? (Since dpkg will not
    > remove disappeared conffiles itself.)


    > And, for the same reason, remove /etc/cron.daily/find?


    Hello,
    I ended up doing it a little bit differently. locate's cronjob is
    configured directly in /etc/cron.daily/find, findutils removes the
    orphaned conffiles using
    .
    cu andreas
    http://svn.debian.org/wsvn/pkg-findu...nch-4.3.x-exp/
    --
    `What a good friend you are to him, Dr. Maturin. His other friends are
    so grateful to you.'
    `I sew his ears on from time to time, sure'


    --
    To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-REQUEST@lists.debian.org
    with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org

  11. Re: Opinions sought: mlocate appropriate for Priority: standard?

    Ivan Shmakov wrote:
    [...]
    > $ cat /usr/bin/update-locate.findutils

    [...]
    > $ cat /etc/cron.daily/update-locate
    > #!/bin/sh
    > if [ -x /usr/sbin/update-locate ]; then
    > /usr/sbin/update-locate
    > fi


    > Or am I missing something?


    The fact that people might want to change with which options the
    respective updatedb is invoked.
    cu andreas
    --
    `What a good friend you are to him, Dr. Maturin. His other friends are
    so grateful to you.'
    `I sew his ears on from time to time, sure'


    --
    To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-REQUEST@lists.debian.org
    with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org

  12. Re: can Breaks be used already? (was Re: Opinions sought: mlocate appropriate for Priority: standard?)

    Steve Langasek writes ("Re: can Breaks be used already? (was Re: Opinions sought: mlocate appropriate for Priority: standard?)"):
    > I think you mean that Ian Jackson always recommends upgrading apt and
    > aptitude prior to performing dist-upgrade. The release notes haven't
    > always recommended this, because in the past there have been occasions where
    > doing so ran into problems related to glibc/kernel circular deps.


    No, I don't make any such recommendation, at least to users :-).

    But yes, I do think it would be a better state of affairs if we
    decided that users ought to do the upgrade with the new package
    installation toolstack, and supported that properly.

    For the deployment of Breaks we do ideally need to either wait a
    release cycle or to upgrade apt, aptitude and dpkg first.

    If there are glibc/kernel circular dependencies which prevent us doing
    this then we should arrange to build the packaging machinery using the
    previous release. That's what we did in previous transitions and it
    worked well.

    Ian.


    --
    To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-REQUEST@lists.debian.org
    with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org

  13. Re: Opinions sought: mlocate appropriate for Priority: standard?

    >>>>> Andreas Metzler writes:

    >> $ cat /usr/bin/update-locate.findutils


    > [...]


    >> $ cat /etc/cron.daily/update-locate
    >> #!/bin/sh
    >> if [ -x /usr/sbin/update-locate ]; then
    >> /usr/sbin/update-locate
    >> fi


    >> Or am I missing something?


    > The fact that people might want to change with which options the
    > respective updatedb is invoked.


    Indeed. Though I'd prefer for code to stay in /usr. Combining
    both the configuration and the code in one /etc-script doesn't
    seem to me like a very bright idea.

    Having separate update-locate handle has an additional benefit
    of allowing one to start database update by hand ``in a clean
    way'' (compare, e. g., # /etc/init.d/foo start vs. # invoke-rc.d
    foo start.)

    Whoever does the work does the decision, though.


    --
    To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-REQUEST@lists.debian.org
    with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org

  14. Re: can Breaks be used already? (was Re: Opinions sought: mlocate appropriate for Priority: standard?)

    On Sat, Nov 17, 2007 at 04:28:24PM +0000, Ian Jackson wrote:
    > Steve Langasek writes ("Re: can Breaks be used already? (was Re: Opinions sought: mlocate appropriate for Priority: standard?)"):
    > > I think you mean that Ian Jackson always recommends upgrading apt and
    > > aptitude prior to performing dist-upgrade. The release notes haven't
    > > always recommended this, because in the past there have been occasions where
    > > doing so ran into problems related to glibc/kernel circular deps.

    >
    > No, I don't make any such recommendation, at least to users :-).
    >
    > But yes, I do think it would be a better state of affairs if we
    > decided that users ought to do the upgrade with the new package
    > installation toolstack, and supported that properly.


    Maybe with the new symbols thing in dpkg-shlibdeps, the new package
    installation toolstack would not depend on the new libc... but there's
    no guarantee for that, unfortunately :-/

    Mike


    --
    To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-REQUEST@lists.debian.org
    with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org

  15. Re: Opinions sought: mlocate appropriate for Priority: standard?

    Joey Hess wrote:
    > Josh Triplett wrote:

    [...]
    >> * No locate should have standard priority as long as findutils
    >> contains locate.
    >> * locate should move out of findutils into a separate package.
    >> * Once that happens, if any locate should have priority standard,
    >> mlocate should.
    >> * However, I don't think any locate should have priority standard.


    > Agreed to all points, except I do think some locate should probably be
    > standard priority. But not required or essential.

    [...]

    Hello,
    FYI I think we have got most pieces now:

    - GNU locate package in experimental (Priority: optional) split-off
    from findutils, using update-alternatives. The locate package
    conflicts with slocate (<= 3.1-1.1). The respective changes
    have also been merged (but not tested) for the next 4.2.x upload.

    - A patch for dlocate to work with the new (and the old) locate package.
    #451750

    - A patch for slocate to switch from using dpkg-divert to u-a. #451792
    cu andreas
    --
    `What a good friend you are to him, Dr. Maturin. His other friends are
    so grateful to you.'
    `I sew his ears on from time to time, sure'


    --
    To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-REQUEST@lists.debian.org
    with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org

  16. Re: Opinions sought: mlocate appropriate for Priority: standard?

    * Andreas Metzler [Sun, 18 Nov 2007 17:57:29 +0100]:

    > Hello,
    > FYI I think we have got most pieces now:


    > - GNU locate package in experimental (Priority: optional) split-off
    > from findutils, using update-alternatives. The locate package
    > conflicts with slocate (<= 3.1-1.1). The respective changes
    > have also been merged (but not tested) for the next 4.2.x upload.


    > - A patch for dlocate to work with the new (and the old) locate package.
    > #451750


    > - A patch for slocate to switch from using dpkg-divert to u-a. #451792


    I've also uploaded mlocate to experimental now (needs NEW processing).

    Cheers,

    --
    Adeodato Simó dato at net.com.org.es
    Debian Developer adeodato at debian.org

    Listening to: Alan Parsons - Far ago and long away


    --
    To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-REQUEST@lists.debian.org
    with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org

  17. Re: Opinions sought: mlocate appropriate for Priority: standard?

    On Sun, Nov 18, 2007 at 06:55:01PM +0100, Adeodato Sim wrote:

    > I've also uploaded mlocate to experimental now (needs NEW processing).


    Great, I'll give it a spin If you want more testing you could post an
    appropriate message to d-u.

    Regards,
    Andrei
    --
    If you can't explain it simply, you don't understand it well enough.
    (Albert Einstein)

    -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
    Version: GnuPG v1.4.6 (GNU/Linux)

    iD8DBQFHQH9iqJyztHCFm9kRAo7sAJ9CIC4tL6TMk6UFW5Y5J4 vrUMKNLACfUsnI
    Gy1oL7mWJ0j5paKxNvseROM=
    =qcIB
    -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----


  18. Re: can Breaks be used already? (was Re: Opinions sought: mlocate appropriate for Priority: standard?)

    On Sun, Nov 18, 2007 at 09:11:04AM +0100, Mike Hommey wrote:
    > On Sat, Nov 17, 2007 at 04:28:24PM +0000, Ian Jackson wrote:
    > > Steve Langasek writes ("Re: can Breaks be used already? (was Re: Opinions sought: mlocate appropriate for Priority: standard?)"):
    > > > I think you mean that Ian Jackson always recommends upgrading apt and
    > > > aptitude prior to performing dist-upgrade. The release notes haven't
    > > > always recommended this, because in the past there have been occasions where
    > > > doing so ran into problems related to glibc/kernel circular deps.


    > > No, I don't make any such recommendation, at least to users :-).


    > > But yes, I do think it would be a better state of affairs if we
    > > decided that users ought to do the upgrade with the new package
    > > installation toolstack, and supported that properly.


    > Maybe with the new symbols thing in dpkg-shlibdeps, the new package
    > installation toolstack would not depend on the new libc...


    But not for etch->lenny, because all binaries built with the lenny toolchain
    need the new ld.so due to changes in the binary format...

    --
    Steve Langasek Give me a lever long enough and a Free OS
    Debian Developer to set it on, and I can move the world.
    vorlon@debian.org http://www.debian.org/


    --
    To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-REQUEST@lists.debian.org
    with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org

  19. Re: Opinions sought: mlocate appropriate for Priority: standard?

    * Andreas Metzler [Sun, 18 Nov 2007 17:57:29 +0100]:

    > Hello,
    > FYI I think we have got most pieces now:


    > - GNU locate package in experimental (Priority: optional) split-off
    > from findutils, using update-alternatives. The locate package
    > conflicts with slocate (<= 3.1-1.1). The respective changes
    > have also been merged (but not tested) for the next 4.2.x upload.


    > - A patch for dlocate to work with the new (and the old) locate package.
    > #451750


    > - A patch for slocate to switch from using dpkg-divert to u-a. #451792
    > cu andreas


    dlocate has been fixed, so I think we could upload to unstable already?

    --
    Adeodato Simó dato at net.com.org.es
    Debian Developer adeodato at debian.org

    - They love him. He chases them around and shouts and pretends to be
    mad, and they laugh and laugh.
    -- Mr. Krumholtze, about Michel


    --
    To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-REQUEST@lists.debian.org
    with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org

  20. Re: Opinions sought: mlocate appropriate for Priority: standard?

    Adeodato Sim wrote:
    [...]
    > dlocate has been fixed, so I think we could upload to unstable
    > already?


    I think so, I intend to upload findutils on saturday or sunday.

    cu andreas

    --
    `What a good friend you are to him, Dr. Maturin. His other friends are
    so grateful to you.'
    `I sew his ears on from time to time, sure'


    --
    To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-REQUEST@lists.debian.org
    with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org

+ Reply to Thread
Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 1 2 3 LastLast