Debian Bug report logs - #566578
[new] Please include release-info scripts

version graph

Package: devscripts; Maintainer for devscripts is Devscripts Devel Team <devscripts-devel@lists.alioth.debian.org>; Source for devscripts is src:devscripts.

Reported by: Benjamin Drung <bdrung@ubuntu.com>

Date: Sat, 23 Jan 2010 22:54:01 UTC

Severity: wishlist

Tags: patch

Found in version devscripts/2.10.61

Done: Benjamin Drung <bdrung@debian.org>

Bug is archived. No further changes may be made.

Toggle useless messages

View this report as an mbox folder, status mbox, maintainer mbox


Report forwarded to debian-bugs-dist@lists.debian.org, bdrung@ubuntu.com, Devscripts Devel Team <pkg-devscripts@teams.debian.net>:
Bug#566578; Package devscripts. (Sat, 23 Jan 2010 22:54:04 GMT) Full text and rfc822 format available.

Acknowledgement sent to Benjamin Drung <bdrung@ubuntu.com>:
New Bug report received and forwarded. Copy sent to bdrung@ubuntu.com, Devscripts Devel Team <pkg-devscripts@teams.debian.net>. (Sat, 23 Jan 2010 22:54:04 GMT) Full text and rfc822 format available.

Message #5 received at submit@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox):

From: Benjamin Drung <bdrung@ubuntu.com>
To: Debian Bug Tracking System <submit@bugs.debian.org>
Subject: [new] Please include release-info scripts
Date: Sat, 23 Jan 2010 23:51:07 +0100
[Message part 1 (text/plain, inline)]
Package: devscripts
Version: 2.10.61
Severity: wishlist
Tags: patch

I have written small release-info scripts (debian-release-info, ubuntu-release-info) for querying information about the distributions' releases. For example you can query the codename for the latest stable release (or latest development release) of the corresponding distribution. You can do your queries based on dates.

For example debchange could rely on these scripts instead of hardcoding the releases.

I filed an ITP [1] and uploaded the release-info package to the archive, but the ftp-master rejected it asking me to integrate it into devscripts.

You can rewrite the scripts in Perl if you dislike Python. I am not experienced enough in Perl to do it by myself.

I am willing to join the devscripts team and maintain these scripts in the team.

[1] http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=559761
[release-info.patch (text/x-diff, attachment)]

Information forwarded to debian-bugs-dist@lists.debian.org, Devscripts Devel Team <pkg-devscripts@teams.debian.net>:
Bug#566578; Package devscripts. (Fri, 16 Apr 2010 19:18:08 GMT) Full text and rfc822 format available.

Acknowledgement sent to Raphael Hertzog <hertzog@debian.org>:
Extra info received and forwarded to list. Copy sent to Devscripts Devel Team <pkg-devscripts@teams.debian.net>. (Fri, 16 Apr 2010 19:18:08 GMT) Full text and rfc822 format available.

Message #10 received at 566578@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox):

From: Raphael Hertzog <hertzog@debian.org>
To: Benjamin Drung <bdrung@ubuntu.com>, 566578@bugs.debian.org
Cc: base-files@packages.debian.org
Subject: Re: Bug#566578: [new] Please include release-info scripts
Date: Fri, 16 Apr 2010 21:15:10 +0200
Hi,

On Sat, 23 Jan 2010, Benjamin Drung wrote:
> I have written small release-info scripts (debian-release-info,
> ubuntu-release-info) for querying information about the distributions'
> releases. For example you can query the codename for the latest stable
> release (or latest development release) of the corresponding
> distribution. You can do your queries based on dates.

Do we need so much information?

I wondered if the raw data (list of codename, current codename) should not
be part of the vendors files in /etc/dpkg/origins/* (so part of
base-files).

The downside is that you would not get all ubuntu codenames in Debian
but Ubuntu would have all Debian codenames and all Ubuntu codenames
(unless Debian includes the Ubuntu vendor file).

On the plus side, you would be able use dpkg-vendor to query the data
and base-files is already a package that has to be updated for each
release anyway. And there's a perl API ready to use to query the vendor
information.

Cheers,
-- 
Raphaƫl Hertzog

Like what I do? Sponsor me: http://ouaza.com/wp/2010/01/05/5-years-of-freexian/
My Debian goals: http://ouaza.com/wp/2010/01/09/debian-related-goals-for-2010/




Information forwarded to debian-bugs-dist@lists.debian.org, Devscripts Devel Team <pkg-devscripts@teams.debian.net>:
Bug#566578; Package devscripts. (Sat, 17 Apr 2010 12:18:06 GMT) Full text and rfc822 format available.

Acknowledgement sent to Santiago Vila <sanvila@unex.es>:
Extra info received and forwarded to list. Copy sent to Devscripts Devel Team <pkg-devscripts@teams.debian.net>. (Sat, 17 Apr 2010 12:18:06 GMT) Full text and rfc822 format available.

Message #15 received at 566578@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox):

From: Santiago Vila <sanvila@unex.es>
To: Raphael Hertzog <hertzog@debian.org>
Cc: Benjamin Drung <bdrung@ubuntu.com>, 566578@bugs.debian.org
Subject: Re: Bug#566578: [new] Please include release-info scripts
Date: Sat, 17 Apr 2010 14:15:35 +0200 (CEST)
On Fri, 16 Apr 2010, Raphael Hertzog wrote:

> Hi,
> 
> On Sat, 23 Jan 2010, Benjamin Drung wrote:
> > I have written small release-info scripts (debian-release-info,
> > ubuntu-release-info) for querying information about the distributions'
> > releases. For example you can query the codename for the latest stable
> > release (or latest development release) of the corresponding
> > distribution. You can do your queries based on dates.
> 
> Do we need so much information?
> 
> I wondered if the raw data (list of codename, current codename) should not
> be part of the vendors files in /etc/dpkg/origins/* (so part of
> base-files).

I don't think that would be a good idea. base-files is essential.
In general, features which are not essential (like historical data)
should not be put in an essential package, otherwise we start to rely
on them "because they are in an essential package" and they end up
being essential.




Information forwarded to debian-bugs-dist@lists.debian.org, Devscripts Devel Team <pkg-devscripts@teams.debian.net>:
Bug#566578; Package devscripts. (Tue, 27 Apr 2010 20:12:03 GMT) Full text and rfc822 format available.

Acknowledgement sent to Benjamin Drung <bdrung@ubuntu.com>:
Extra info received and forwarded to list. Copy sent to Devscripts Devel Team <pkg-devscripts@teams.debian.net>. (Tue, 27 Apr 2010 20:12:03 GMT) Full text and rfc822 format available.

Message #20 received at 566578@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox):

From: Benjamin Drung <bdrung@ubuntu.com>
To: Santiago Vila <sanvila@unex.es>
Cc: Raphael Hertzog <hertzog@debian.org>, 566578@bugs.debian.org
Subject: Re: Bug#566578: [new] Please include release-info scripts
Date: Tue, 27 Apr 2010 22:09:48 +0200
[Message part 1 (text/plain, inline)]
Am Samstag, den 17.04.2010, 14:15 +0200 schrieb Santiago Vila:
> On Fri, 16 Apr 2010, Raphael Hertzog wrote:
> 
> > Hi,
> > 
> > On Sat, 23 Jan 2010, Benjamin Drung wrote:
> > > I have written small release-info scripts (debian-release-info,
> > > ubuntu-release-info) for querying information about the distributions'
> > > releases. For example you can query the codename for the latest stable
> > > release (or latest development release) of the corresponding
> > > distribution. You can do your queries based on dates.
> > 
> > Do we need so much information?
> > 
> > I wondered if the raw data (list of codename, current codename) should not
> > be part of the vendors files in /etc/dpkg/origins/* (so part of
> > base-files).
> 
> I don't think that would be a good idea. base-files is essential.
> In general, features which are not essential (like historical data)
> should not be put in an essential package, otherwise we start to rely
> on them "because they are in an essential package" and they end up
> being essential.

That's a valid point. This data is not important enough to be essential.

Am Freitag, den 16.04.2010, 21:15 +0200 schrieb Raphael Hertzog: 
> The downside is that you would not get all ubuntu codenames in Debian
> but Ubuntu would have all Debian codenames and all Ubuntu codenames
> (unless Debian includes the Ubuntu vendor file).

The codenames of both distributions should be available for both distributions.

> On the plus side, you would be able use dpkg-vendor to query the data
> and base-files is already a package that has to be updated for each
> release anyway. And there's a perl API ready to use to query the vendor
> information.

Having the data and scripts in dpkg-dev instead of devscripts would be
possible, too.

BTW, I am searching for a Perl hacker, who can port the Python script
into Perl (to reduce the dependencies).

-- 
Benjamin Drung
Ubuntu Developer (www.ubuntu.com) | Debian Maintainer (www.debian.org)
[signature.asc (application/pgp-signature, inline)]

Information forwarded to debian-bugs-dist@lists.debian.org, Devscripts Devel Team <pkg-devscripts@teams.debian.net>:
Bug#566578; Package devscripts. (Tue, 08 Mar 2011 22:09:03 GMT) Full text and rfc822 format available.

Acknowledgement sent to Benjamin Drung <bdrung@debian.org>:
Extra info received and forwarded to list. Copy sent to Devscripts Devel Team <pkg-devscripts@teams.debian.net>. (Tue, 08 Mar 2011 22:09:03 GMT) Full text and rfc822 format available.

Message #25 received at 566578@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox):

From: Benjamin Drung <bdrung@debian.org>
To: 566578@bugs.debian.org
Subject: release-info scripts in ubuntu-dev-tools
Date: Tue, 08 Mar 2011 23:04:29 +0100
[Message part 1 (text/plain, inline)]
Here's an update of the current situation:

The release-info scripts are renamed to distro-info (distro-info,
debian-distro-info, and ubuntu-distro-info) and are part of
ubuntu-dev-tools.

I leave this bug open, because devscripts is a better place for these
scripts.

-- 
Benjamin Drung
Debian & Ubuntu Developer
[signature.asc (application/pgp-signature, inline)]

Reply sent to Benjamin Drung <bdrung@debian.org>:
You have taken responsibility. (Sun, 22 May 2011 14:36:06 GMT) Full text and rfc822 format available.

Notification sent to Benjamin Drung <bdrung@ubuntu.com>:
Bug acknowledged by developer. (Sun, 22 May 2011 14:36:06 GMT) Full text and rfc822 format available.

Message #30 received at 566578-done@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox):

From: Benjamin Drung <bdrung@debian.org>
To: 566578-done@bugs.debian.org
Subject: release-info scripts in ubuntu-dev-tools
Date: Sun, 22 May 2011 16:33:02 +0200
[Message part 1 (text/plain, inline)]
The distro-info script comes with a corresponding Python library.
Launchpad wants to use this library and therefore it will end up in a
separate package.

-- 
Benjamin Drung
Debian & Ubuntu Developer
[signature.asc (application/pgp-signature, inline)]

Bug archived. Request was from Debbugs Internal Request <owner@bugs.debian.org> to internal_control@bugs.debian.org. (Mon, 20 Jun 2011 07:35:26 GMT) Full text and rfc822 format available.

Send a report that this bug log contains spam.


Debian bug tracking system administrator <owner@bugs.debian.org>. Last modified: Sat Apr 19 12:22:11 2014; Machine Name: beach.debian.org

Debian Bug tracking system
Copyright (C) 1999 Darren O. Benham, 1997,2003 nCipher Corporation Ltd, 1994-97 Ian Jackson.