Merge lp:~jelmer/bzr-builddeb/automatic-distribution-name into lp:~bzr-builddeb-hackers/bzr-builddeb/trunk-old

[Jelmer Vernooij]

[Jelmer Vernooij (jelmer)]

This branch makes bzr-builddeb a bit smarter when suggesting dch commands, i.e. it will now automatically suggest "-0ubuntu1" when packaging for an ubuntu distribution rather than "-1".

It also makes --distribution default to the last distribution in debian/changelog.

[James Westby (james-w)]

Hi,

Why does it not just use -1 for Debian and -0ubuntu1 for
Ubuntu? When would you want to package a new upstream with
a different version number?

I'm not sure about defaulting to the distribution last used in
debian/changelog. While it's easy to fix up in the changelog
the tag it puts on upstream would be incorrect, which will lead
to severe problems later.

Thanks,

James

review: Needs Fixing

[Jelmer Vernooij (jelmer)]

It allows merging Ubuntu branches from Debian and the other way around. E.g. If I merge some Ubuntu package with version 1.2-2ubuntu1 into my Debian branch, which would already have 1.2-2, I end up with 1.2-3.

[James Westby (james-w)]

On Fri, 2008-11-28 at 14:59 +0000, Jelmer Vernooij wrote:
> It allows merging Ubuntu branches from Debian and the other way around.
> E.g. If I merge some Ubuntu package with version 1.2-2ubuntu1 into my
> Debian branch, which would already have 1.2-2, I end up with 1.2-3.

Yes, but you wouldn't use "merge-upstream" for that would you?
"merge-upstream" is intended to merge a new upstream tarball in to your
branch.

Thanks,

James

[Jelmer Vernooij (jelmer)]

On Fri, 2008-11-28 at 15:03 +0000, James Westby wrote:
> On Fri, 2008-11-28 at 14:59 +0000, Jelmer Vernooij wrote:
> > It allows merging Ubuntu branches from Debian and the other way around.
> > E.g. If I merge some Ubuntu package with version 1.2-2ubuntu1 into my
> > Debian branch, which would already have 1.2-2, I end up with 1.2-3.
>
> Yes, but you wouldn't use "merge-upstream" for that would you?
> "merge-upstream" is intended to merge a new upstream tarball in to your
> branch.
Yeah, I guess that's true. Should we error out then if we find that the
upstream version already includes an debian version?

Cheers,

Jelmer

--
Jelmer Vernooij <email address hidden> - http://samba.org/~jelmer/
Jabber: <email address hidden>

[James Westby (james-w)]

On Fri, 2008-11-28 at 15:27 +0000, Jelmer Vernooij wrote:
> On Fri, 2008-11-28 at 15:03 +0000, James Westby wrote:
> > On Fri, 2008-11-28 at 14:59 +0000, Jelmer Vernooij wrote:
> > > It allows merging Ubuntu branches from Debian and the other way around.
> > > E.g. If I merge some Ubuntu package with version 1.2-2ubuntu1 into my
> > > Debian branch, which would already have 1.2-2, I end up with 1.2-3.
> >
> > Yes, but you wouldn't use "merge-upstream" for that would you?
> > "merge-upstream" is intended to merge a new upstream tarball in to your
> > branch.
> Yeah, I guess that's true. Should we error out then if we find that the
> upstream version already includes an debian version?

This would be for merging from a branch I assume?

I'm not sure we should be erroring out.

You can do a plain "bzr merge" to merge in in the changes from
Ubuntu. This will work fine if you have -1 and they have -1ubuntu1.

If however you don't have the upstream that they have yet then
you will get problems as the upstream version is not tagged in
your branch with the "debian" tag.

That's a bug and not really related to your changes. I don't know a
way to solve this yet, do you have any ideas?

Thanks,

James

[Jelmer Vernooij (jelmer)]

Am Freitag, den 28.11.2008, 16:01 +0000 schrieb James Westby:
> On Fri, 2008-11-28 at 15:27 +0000, Jelmer Vernooij wrote:
> > On Fri, 2008-11-28 at 15:03 +0000, James Westby wrote:
> > > On Fri, 2008-11-28 at 14:59 +0000, Jelmer Vernooij wrote:
> > > > It allows merging Ubuntu branches from Debian and the other way around.
> > > > E.g. If I merge some Ubuntu package with version 1.2-2ubuntu1 into my
> > > > Debian branch, which would already have 1.2-2, I end up with 1.2-3.
> > >
> > > Yes, but you wouldn't use "merge-upstream" for that would you?
> > > "merge-upstream" is intended to merge a new upstream tarball in to your
> > > branch.
> > Yeah, I guess that's true. Should we error out then if we find that the
> > upstream version already includes an debian version?
>
> This would be for merging from a branch I assume?
>
> I'm not sure we should be erroring out.
>
> You can do a plain "bzr merge" to merge in in the changes from
> Ubuntu. This will work fine if you have -1 and they have -1ubuntu1.
But you wouldn't be using merge-upstream in that case (as you mentioned
earlier)? It seems if you wanted to use m-u in this case, my previous
patch would be useful.

> If however you don't have the upstream that they have yet then
> you will get problems as the upstream version is not tagged in
> your branch with the "debian" tag.
>
> That's a bug and not really related to your changes. I don't know a
> way to solve this yet, do you have any ideas?
I'm not sure I understand what you mean here. Do you mean that the wrong
revision will be tagged as upstream if you merge from another
Debian/Ubuntu branch rather than the actual upstream?

Cheers,

Jelmer
--
Jelmer Vernooij <email address hidden> - http://samba.org/~jelmer/
Jabber: <email address hidden>

[James Westby (james-w)]

On Sun, 2008-11-30 at 20:31 +0000, Jelmer Vernooij wrote:
> Am Freitag, den 28.11.2008, 16:01 +0000 schrieb James Westby:
> > You can do a plain "bzr merge" to merge in in the changes from
> > Ubuntu. This will work fine if you have -1 and they have -1ubuntu1.
> But you wouldn't be using merge-upstream in that case (as you mentioned
> earlier)? It seems if you wanted to use m-u in this case, my previous
> patch would be useful.

True, but m-u support for branches means that it is possible now doesn't
it?

> > If however you don't have the upstream that they have yet then
> > you will get problems as the upstream version is not tagged in
> > your branch with the "debian" tag.
> >
> > That's a bug and not really related to your changes. I don't know a
> > way to solve this yet, do you have any ideas?
> I'm not sure I understand what you mean here. Do you mean that the wrong
> revision will be tagged as upstream if you merge from another
> Debian/Ubuntu branch rather than the actual upstream?

The upstream revision will only get the "ubuntu" version of the tag, not
the "debian" one. There needs to be two tags for representing historic
information as sometimes the tarballs were different, and you don't
want the tags to conflict as you merge. Perhaps that was a bad decision.

We either need some way to tag the upstream when you merge, or to change
the code to fall-back to the other tag if the one for the current distro
isn't found.

Thanks,

James

[Jelmer Vernooij (jelmer)]

Hi James,

Am Sonntag, den 30.11.2008, 21:12 +0000 schrieb James Westby:
> On Sun, 2008-11-30 at 20:31 +0000, Jelmer Vernooij wrote:
> > Am Freitag, den 28.11.2008, 16:01 +0000 schrieb James Westby:
> > > You can do a plain "bzr merge" to merge in in the changes from
> > > Ubuntu. This will work fine if you have -1 and they have -1ubuntu1.
> > But you wouldn't be using merge-upstream in that case (as you mentioned
> > earlier)? It seems if you wanted to use m-u in this case, my previous
> > patch would be useful.
> True, but m-u support for branches means that it is possible now doesn't
> it?
Yep, it is somewhat supported - so we should either support it properly
(which is what my original patch tried to do to some degree) or refuse
to prevent people from running into issues with it.

> > > If however you don't have the upstream that they have yet then
> > > you will get problems as the upstream version is not tagged in
> > > your branch with the "debian" tag.
> > >
> > > That's a bug and not really related to your changes. I don't know a
> > > way to solve this yet, do you have any ideas?
> > I'm not sure I understand what you mean here. Do you mean that the wrong
> > revision will be tagged as upstream if you merge from another
> > Debian/Ubuntu branch rather than the actual upstream?
> The upstream revision will only get the "ubuntu" version of the tag, not
> the "debian" one. There needs to be two tags for representing historic
> information as sometimes the tarballs were different, and you don't
> want the tags to conflict as you merge. Perhaps that was a bad decision.
>
> We either need some way to tag the upstream when you merge, or to change
> the code to fall-back to the other tag if the one for the current distro
> isn't found.
Hmm, I hadn't thought of that situation.

Maybe just refuse to do this sort of inter-distribution merges until
this particular issue is handled properly ?

Cheers,

Jelmer
--
Jelmer Vernooij <email address hidden> - http://samba.org/~jelmer/
Jabber: <email address hidden>

[Jelmer Vernooij (jelmer)]

Hi James,

Am Sonntag, den 30.11.2008, 21:12 +0000 schrieb James Westby:
> On Sun, 2008-11-30 at 20:31 +0000, Jelmer Vernooij wrote:
> > Am Freitag, den 28.11.2008, 16:01 +0000 schrieb James Westby:
> > > You can do a plain "bzr merge" to merge in in the changes from
> > > Ubuntu. This will work fine if you have -1 and they have -1ubuntu1.
> > But you wouldn't be using merge-upstream in that case (as you mentioned
> > earlier)? It seems if you wanted to use m-u in this case, my previous
> > patch would be useful.
> True, but m-u support for branches means that it is possible now doesn't
> it?
Yep, it is somewhat supported - so we should either support it properly
(which is what my original patch tried to do to some degree) or refuse
to prevent people from running into issues with it.

> > > If however you don't have the upstream that they have yet then
> > > you will get problems as the upstream version is not tagged in
> > > your branch with the "debian" tag.
> > >
> > > That's a bug and not really related to your changes. I don't know a
> > > way to solve this yet, do you have any ideas?
> > I'm not sure I understand what you mean here. Do you mean that the wrong
> > revision will be tagged as upstream if you merge from another
> > Debian/Ubuntu branch rather than the actual upstream?
> The upstream revision will only get the "ubuntu" version of the tag, not
> the "debian" one. There needs to be two tags for representing historic
> information as sometimes the tarballs were different, and you don't
> want the tags to conflict as you merge. Perhaps that was a bad decision.
>
> We either need some way to tag the upstream when you merge, or to change
> the code to fall-back to the other tag if the one for the current distro
> isn't found.
Hmm, I hadn't thought of that situation.

Maybe just refuse to do this sort of inter-distribution merges until
this particular issue is handled properly ?

Cheers,

Jelmer
--
Jelmer Vernooij <email address hidden> - http://samba.org/~jelmer/
Jabber: <email address hidden>