Subject: Bug#4454: `Distribution: unstable' but it goes into project/experimental

From: Ian Jackson <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 9 Sep 96 16:57 BST

Package: ftp.debian.org

When I uploaded debiandoc-sgml 1.0.5 the .changes file below was
included.   As you can see it said `Distribution: unstable'.  However,
I see that the package has not been installed into unstable but into
project/experimental.  It should be moved, and steps should be taken
to stop the problem from recurring.

$ find -name 'debiandoc*'
./project/experimental/debiandoc-sgml_1.0.5.dsc
./project/experimental/debiandoc-sgml_1.0.5.tar.gz
./project/experimental/debiandoc-sgml_1.0.5_all.deb
$ 

Ian.

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----

Format: 1.5
Date: Sun, 1 Sep 1996 23:59:20 +0100
Source: debiandoc-sgml
Binary: debiandoc-sgml
Architecture: source all
Version: 1.0.5
Distribution: unstable
Urgency: low (HIGH for building dpkg)
Maintainer: Ian Jackson <[email-masked]>
Description: 
 debiandoc-sgml - Documentation formatting for Debian manuals
Changes: 
 debiandoc-sgml (1.0.5) unstable; urgency=low (HIGH for building dpkg)
 .
   * debiandoc2ps -O (output to stdout) works.
   * Lout converter uses `paperconf' (thanks to Yves Arrouye).
 .
   * Manpages installed compressed.
   * dpkg-gencontrol invocation moved to near end of debian/rules.
   * Some typos in markup manual corrected.
   * Spurious `t' file removed from source package.
   * Updated to Standards-Version 2.1.0.0.
Files: 
 63492024bd04abe5bd0a12ce6a07a1e9 559 text optional debiandoc-sgml_1.0.5.dsc
 6127aeedbb950d2fdaf6ffe59c69bd6e 34047 text optional debiandoc-sgml_1.0.5.tar.gz
 bf6a689902005cbada5f0f37a2f367d9 25002 text optional debiandoc-sgml_1.0.5_all.deb

---

From: Guy Maor <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 9 Sep 1996 13:00:05 -0500 (CDT)

> to stop the problem from recurring.

I will move debiandoc-sgml, but dinstall's behavior was correct.

The override files instructed dinstall to put debiandoc-sgml into
experimental, overriding what was in the .changes file.

This problem will recur whenever a package moves from one section or
distribution to another.  dinstall cannot handle this case because it
doesn't know where to look for the older version to unlink it.

Instead it assumes that the .changes file listed incorrect sections and
distributions (a fairly frequent occurrence actually), and installs the
package into the old location.  Since package movements are much more
rare than .changes files with incorrect locations, dinstall's assumption
is the right one.

dinstall could, alternatively, require human intervention in this case.
But it was written to run as automatically as possible.  It will make a
recoverable error, which is usually the right thing to do, rather than
do nothing at all.

A third alternative is to turn the `Override file lists section as
... overriding your choice of ...' message into an error, so the package
would get rejected.  But this is illogical as it would require MORE
intervention: maintainers would be forced to reupload new .changes
files and the distribution maintainer would still have to edit the
override file.

So I would like to close this bug, as it's not a bug.  Of couse, you
may be able to suggest a fourth alternative which is better.

Guy

PS - I can't seem to log in to master right now, but I'll move
debiandoc-sgml when I can.

---

From: Dale Scheetz <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 10 Sep 1996 09:39:22 -0400 (EDT)

I am having problems getting date to produce the date in the format for
the changelog. It is probably just ignorance, although I have read the
date manpage frontwards and backwards, there is no definition of datestr.
The closest I have gotten is:

date -d "+%a, +%d +%B +%Y +%T"

which gives the error: "invalid date format"

Ian, how do you do this? Anybody? 

TIA,

Dwarf

------------                                          --------------

aka   Dale Scheetz                   Phone:   1 (904) 877-0257
      Flexible Software              Fax:     NONE 
      Black Creek Critters           e-mail:  [email-masked]

------------ If you don't see what you want, just ask --------------

---

From: [email-masked]
Date: Tue, 10 Sep 96 11:39 EDT

Dale> Ian, how do you do this? Anybody?

Just Use the 822-date Ian provides with dpkg:

edd@miles:~> 822-date
Tue, 10 Sep 1996 11:38:13 -0400          

I'd rather use the emacs changelog mode, though.

--
Dirk Eddelb"uttel                             http://qed.econ.queensu.ca/~edd

---

From: Dale Scheetz <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 10 Sep 1996 12:00:42 -0400 (EDT)

> Tue, 10 Sep 1996 11:38:13 -0400          
Coolness! Works fine! Was I supposed to see this in the docs somewhere?

Thanks,

Dwarf

------------ If you don't see what you want, just ask --------------

---

From: Guy Maor <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 10 Sep 1996 12:31:29 -0500 (CDT)

On Tue, 10 Sep 1996, Dale Scheetz wrote:

> the changelog.

Run the program `822-date'.

Guy

---

From: Ian Jackson <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 12 Sep 96 18:11 BST

Guy Maor writes ("Re: Bug#4454: `Distribution: unstable' but it goes into project/experimental"):
...
> experimental, overriding what was in the .changes file.

Ergh.

> doesn't know where to look for the older version to unlink it.

Couldn't it look in the override file ?

> rare than .changes files with incorrect locations, dinstall's assumption

I think that we should try to make .changes files right.  I think the
new source format will help here.  (dchanges made it very easy to say
`Distribution: unstable' without thinking.)

> recoverable error, which is usually the right thing to do, rather than

Thanks.

> may be able to suggest a fourth alternative which is better.

Could you report the bad Distribution as a bug, if it turns out to be
true ?

Ian.

---

From: Guy Maor <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 12 Sep 1996 13:08:16 -0500 (CDT)

> Couldn't it look in the override file ?

How would it know that if the discrepency was a mistake in the .changes
file or a moving package?  I should have said that dinstall can't
handle this case because it can't differentiate it from an incorrect
.changes file.

> `Distribution: unstable' without thinking.)

Yes, that caused problems for me because I had to make certain sections
special, mapping to distributions with the same name.
unstable/contrib, for instance, maps to contrib/contrib.  The new
source format certainly helps, but it doesn't guarantee that this won't
happen.

That reminds me to obsolete dchanges.  Plenty of people are using the
old format, but I'd like to discourage it.

> Could you report the bad Distribution as a bug, if it turns out to be

I will make dinstall warn if there was a mistake in the .changes's
Distribution field.

Guy