De : Peter Blackman <peter@pblackman.plus.com>
À : Pierre-Elliott Bécue <peb@debian.org>; Hefee <hefee@debian.org>
Cc : 1101040@bugs.debian.org
Date : 4 avr. 2025 13:49:34
Objet : Re: kdsingleapplication

Hi Pierre, Hefee,

kdsingleapplication is ready for upload to unstable,
but I don't have the rights to do it myself.

It seems the ABI was not changed (although upstream bumped the SONAME) (#1) so there is no need for a transition!
This means we can still avoid introducing the SSH issue into Trixie (#2)

Its up to date on the VCS, also dput the source package to Mentors (#3)

#1) https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=1100876
#2) https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=1100026
#2) https://mentors.debian.net/package/kdsingleapplication/

Regards,
Peter

I'll look into it today.

Thanks!

--
Pierre-Elliott Bécue

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

Hi Pierre, Hefee,

kdsingleapplication is ready for upload to unstable,
but I don't have the rights to do it myself.

It seems the ABI was not changed (although upstream bumped the SONAME) (#1)
so there is no need for a transition!
This means we can still avoid introducing the SSH issue into Trixie (#2)


Its up to date on the VCS, also dput the source package to Mentors (#3)

#1) https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=1100876
#2) https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=1100026
#2) https://mentors.debian.net/package/kdsingleapplication/


Regards,
Peter

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

Pierre-Elliott Bécue <peb@debian.org> wrote on 04/04/2025 at 13:50:27+0200:

De : Peter Blackman <peter@pblackman.plus.com>
À : Pierre-Elliott Bécue <peb@debian.org>; Hefee <hefee@debian.org>
Cc : 1101040@bugs.debian.org
Date : 4 avr. 2025 13:49:34
Objet : Re: kdsingleapplication

Hi Pierre, Hefee,

kdsingleapplication is ready for upload to unstable,
but I don't have the rights to do it myself.

It seems the ABI was not changed (although upstream bumped the SONAME) (#1) >> so there is no need for a transition!
This means we can still avoid introducing the SSH issue into Trixie (#2)


Its up to date on the VCS, also dput the source package to Mentors (#3)

#1) https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=1100876
#2) https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=1100026
#2) https://mentors.debian.net/package/kdsingleapplication/


Regards,
Peter

I'll look into it today.

Thanks!

Hey,

I have a problem with your control file:

First the Breaks+Replaces on the -dev pkg seems unwarranted. Can you
explain me what are you trying to do with it?

Second the Replaces+Conflicts on the lib itself for
itself. Theoretically, two different versions of the same package can't
be installed concurrently (except multi-arch, but the conflicts+replaces
is only valid per arch. It seems useless.

Also, if it's to be useful, a versioned conflicts means you want to use replaces.

Can you help me see what you want to achieve?

Bests,
--
PEB

--=-=-Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc"

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----

iQJDBAEBCgAtFiEE5CQeth7uIW7ehIz87iFbn7jEWwsFAmf23BIPHHBlYkBkZWJp YW4ub3JnAAoJEO4hW5+4xFsLotMP/AzJ10DAI5NzOc7McwbD41CG5hPuh7i9mFxy P+KObNRRptoDC7DxVBgNgak0x957miWR82nqfw4dvJF9+n3Kif2wIp0sXyG0ehN/ AvV+/GKkhr0Cxb1IJVQ8H+a+B9uf+ycguJBnwrDDMJbClRBl5M40r4znIGBp7YOP XeIVzdX7LSTcAkOC1C0N2I9n7C2fdhu61AEJzA0x1Hj1XNEKtAMJfqTRq1stsGjm Vgyjlis6LOYycRmnRlV85qe7yVpzgbOgn5Wn2aQ3cpQy+Xkv2OqIy6ECmX5sGoRQ 4ijwDVheRC68PyJtLUkHFRD0MtW6oIa8xla7bChrFAZtCmE/S6IOn/vpgd9OWYdu CkXVo8odTKpB/wBEQyCIOFH4wrAXpePdDc7ClH56vPXa8Frz9f8pUUaHaoG4pliZ MfpoUIS9mpLbVdHsYXwhCJlGJAWBfoUUvBOBAN+161cBsV9833hD1xY4z8t3u2Eh K/npELebe70nVY5iaerHJ4/OsAdNIuI7fojyLzzb93t8VOzR35mdAEnArXfLTGVF Mc3UHbt2oVK5yLCdf97ekBegB+NZrHvkQ7j0yyznV/xNMSY1OZ6vOBBxeKnD7/7q TQ+2Q4Sz3VjNHV/dfQ3IQnEkerF3vZxAc7s9R3PLgWogDX+1L6w1PbMNYYzJWYd/
QMxljwKj
§dQ
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On 09/04/2025 21:44, Pierre-Elliott Bécue wrote:

Hey,

I have a problem with your control file:

First the Breaks+Replaces on the -dev pkg seems unwarranted. Can you
explain me what are you trying to do with it?

Second the Replaces+Conflicts on the lib itself for
itself. Theoretically, two different versions of the same package can't
be installed concurrently (except multi-arch, but the conflicts+replaces
is only valid per arch. It seems useless.

Also, if it's to be useful, a versioned conflicts means you want to use replaces.

Can you help me see what you want to achieve?

Bests,

Hi Pierre,

I could not get piuparts to work with anything less
regarding Breaks/Conflicts/Replaces.

You can see the history and the pipeline/piuparts
fails in the recent commits.
(A piuparts failure will prevent migration of course)


There is no problem with manual upgrading, if the library
is upgraded first, but it seems piuparts tries to upgrade
the dev package first, which fails because of file conflict.
(The cmake files were moved to the dev package in version 1.1.
The lib package should only contain the .so files)


Regards,
Peter

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

I could not get piuparts to work with anything less
regarding Breaks/Conflicts/Replaces.

You can see the history and the pipeline/piuparts
 fails in the recent commits.
(A piuparts failure will prevent migration of course)

I tried again this morning, and it seems the breaks/replaces
in the library binary package section can be dropped.

(There is a new version of APT which I gather has better conflict
resolution)


Regards,
Peter

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On 09/04/2025 21:44, Pierre-Elliott Bécue wrote:

Second the Replaces+Conflicts on the lib itself for
itself. Theoretically, two different versions of the same package can't
be installed concurrently (except multi-arch, but the conflicts+replaces
is only valid per arch. It seems useless.

Hi Pierre,

It was indeed useless. Thanks for pointing this out.

I've pushed a fixed control file to Salsa.


Regards,
Peter

https://salsa.debian.org/debian/kdsingleapplication/-/commit/5c1121e96e730622fd5f429ed371f94bb8bdd4d2

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

....
So, here you just need the Breaks: field in the -dev package and that's
all. Conflicts is for permanent stuff, it should generally not be
versioned. Here it's just file moving, so a breaks is enough. And no replaces, as -dev does not replace the lib.

I see you've committed something, I did an additionnal commit.

Tell me if that's fine with you.

Bests,

Hi Pierre,

Looks good to me. Thanks.

The CI fail on "missing breaks" is a false positive.
(piuparts is happy, that is what's important!)

Regards,
Peter

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

Peter Blackman <peter@pblackman.plus.com> wrote on 10/04/2025 at 00:25:27+0200:

On 09/04/2025 21:44, Pierre-Elliott Bécue wrote:

Hey,
I have a problem with your control file:
First the Breaks+Replaces on the -dev pkg seems unwarranted. Can you
explain me what are you trying to do with it?
Second the Replaces+Conflicts on the lib itself for
itself. Theoretically, two different versions of the same package can't
be installed concurrently (except multi-arch, but the conflicts+replaces
is only valid per arch. It seems useless.
Also, if it's to be useful, a versioned conflicts means you want to
use
replaces.
Can you help me see what you want to achieve?
Bests,

Hi Pierre,

I could not get piuparts to work with anything less
regarding Breaks/Conflicts/Replaces.

You can see the history and the pipeline/piuparts
fails in the recent commits.
(A piuparts failure will prevent migration of course)

There is no problem with manual upgrading, if the library
is upgraded first, but it seems piuparts tries to upgrade
the dev package first, which fails because of file conflict.
(The cmake files were moved to the dev package in version 1.1.
The lib package should only contain the .so files)

Ah, I see I missed your moving of the cmake files to the dev package.

Sorry, they should have been there all the time, I screwed up in 2022 I
guess.

So, here you just need the Breaks: field in the -dev package and that's
all. Conflicts is for permanent stuff, it should generally not be
versioned. Here it's just file moving, so a breaks is enough. And no
replaces, as -dev does not replace the lib.

I see you've committed something, I did an additionnal commit.

Tell me if that's fine with you.

Bests,
--
PEB

--=-=-Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc"

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----

iQJDBAEBCgAtFiEE5CQeth7uIW7ehIz87iFbn7jEWwsFAmf3r64PHHBlYkBkZWJp YW4ub3JnAAoJEO4hW5+4xFsLuLMQAK1NaR5LZ8/5VvUVlWgxCmcCTuVpDwoiZvNA dsoxnlSKNZ7LfpYIawh+CftU9j8HgXiDxIi+sKhc7/nF++p3o+61B0UeQj4SieYe 2jUCvAMeSiEYfiyr7gFlJphQxdNDNDowTtM691GGXDEAQKORUfFKF2AGH5exr5JV EsSTMfFrpPsACSUihWL5E8sF2D1Y8ydpcKy1R/vg0tJMlCTsEkFOooBveM7UQfZV i/Tv08FkBDpvCfgQkQVjbGuUYcgDbnww6OvRYvuETEXMi8A5s4C6W7hdD47DrPkX yYJJGGb5nEMANqe1Ue9Nc/8QimQXtby25hRoM2Htx/saCHKOu5LgUs8E4rbv7KyX VZLGRWrncDZ+6kg3gjGtpzjTXBeiWRZoGKrBLIPotNiL9mEQcYtokhRUak8b61aS CVJ3l3XfinA6P+Q/BEl7fT2faAbtM4PaPjfmQbhd2HLXoJO9ZmXfvxRMovPughDb FAoBjqnTqjiwc3oLzULISq9rtziyz92w2UXe+fLq88szRPyoS0Ctl6s3EXWnBcx3 t6ho6fbN+Jbq0VkGB9B/GS0ZipegimjI/Nmats6RMTSRbi0BTCjhy5uiE3FcHZsh bBxC0tCV/Vo6h4e1wzi5qAqLD/jsC9faTotz2F8MohSPDDWKR2p1RY8W5HjSxzRM
t1nyh+tx
=Gj7J
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

Copy: 1101040@bugs.debian.org

Hey,

So, here you just need the Breaks: field in the -dev package and that's
all. Conflicts is for permanent stuff, it should generally not be
versioned. Here it's just file moving, so a breaks is enough. And no replaces, as -dev does not replace the lib.

break alone is very rare. in most cases you need to add replaces too.
I always using the nice wiki page to look the correct way: https://wiki.debian.org/PackageTransition

Okay some files went from the lib to the dev packages. it is #9
So lib package is A and dev package is B

so the lib package just need a Breaks : dev (<< 1.1.0-1)
and the dev package Breaks/Replaces: lib (<< 1.1.0-1)

So I would say you still miss the Breaks on the lib package, the dev package
is fine in Breaks/Replaces.

Regards,

hefee
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----

iQIzBAABCgAdFiEEOewRoCAWtykmSRoG462wCFBgVjYFAmf4NVcACgkQ462wCFBg VjbiFRAAqqpz8MFVOBoeg54jZAbFJV1BKycMaBpFlha2znrRBRCQXnD0gsTeBnGF ZZmJyjOkTUN4igyDFFpxu+uSpvZuuKBzCSM9t87cYyFuu699eNnyp8RidAU0Ceoc eoUibLVnRZ1023IP+O1PMMFTZ/VGTqD/5OfIm2TKNFexWG7FTxga1xiTsMAPr8qT e4LU+rNj/hOebruZowGlH+N1aOHO00si7iFIIX7YPjSTbmewDA5l762V+uXodLbw 3QB6R25MxJnwb7wUt6v01Jkf0XRc3S/GEz+cy3MreNHCcSgfgyRX5bpq5q2bLVKi k2MOP2RnMrd/3y042vWTX7Q9VAh0fTR7mAu3vzJKe8wWd6AsqyFgVDhj/dBUUu/Y +nqpA4Vk/dP91q37V20Nr2c6P0mNkR5tfDshwUgTAp9VjddIWuwE/gAIc36pZZeU ONKPn5CYK/svSYMIFTvZkytrrzwK7OxemICLFTA7EsnpZw6zXtA1+HF2QOcduAfN Lz8ZJSjzBeh34U0l36NR84OzVZBS3kur6Q5O0tU+bxyw8LluqlJ3on6ShNJObrGN xToVcfsOu5PxhR1OAH+FIWa5jkYHirDr5WiBtMRxacWEmyUCr1R1rDulYO/9lM1x yjZ307mCs//iUz8DM+2mo0JmWXMapwwdbCcVcQXs9P814vh7kYE=
=tnyu
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On 10/04/2025 22:17, Hefee wrote:

Hey,

So, here you just need the Breaks: field in the -dev package and that's
all. Conflicts is for permanent stuff, it should generally not be
versioned. Here it's just file moving, so a breaks is enough. And no
replaces, as -dev does not replace the lib.

break alone is very rare. in most cases you need to add replaces too.
I always using the nice wiki page to look the correct way: https://wiki.debian.org/PackageTransition

Okay some files went from the lib to the dev packages. it is #9
So lib package is A and dev package is B

so the lib package just need a Breaks : dev (<< 1.1.0-1)
and the dev package Breaks/Replaces: lib (<< 1.1.0-1)

So I would say you still miss the Breaks on the lib package, the dev package is fine in Breaks/Replaces.

Regards,

hefee

Hi Hefee,

I now think you are correct here, but it is not causing
an actual problem with piuparts.

I could not understand at first why lib 1.1.0 would Break dev << 1.1.0,
but the moved files would be in neither package, so the dev package
would not be viable in that case.

Removing the Replace on dev 1.1.0 on lib << 1.1.0 caused
the CI job missing-breaks to fail. On looking more closely,
the script says "Missing Breaks/Replaces found". The title
is misleading, in that it is checking for missing Replaces
as well as Breaks. This seems to be case 7.6.1 in Policy,
distinct from 7.6.2
https://www.debian.org/doc/debian-policy/ch-relationships.html#overwriting-files-in-other-packages


I don't have any strong view on whether to change things now,
There is no issue with the Release upgrade, as kdsa is not
in stable anyway.

However, I want to change strawberry to remove the patch that downgrades dependency on kdsa (upstream requires 1.1.0 specifically).
https://salsa.debian.org/debian/strawberry/-/blob/master/debian/patches/KDSA.patch?ref_type=heads

I'd like to make any changes priority high on account of the freeze.
(Soft freeze in only 4 days now!)

I'll push a suggested change to Salsa anyway.

Regards,
Peter

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)