Please merge parrot (1.0.0-1) from Debian unstable

[GiuseppeVerde]

Binary package hint: parrot

Parrot in hardy as of this morning (CDT) is 0.4.13-1ubuntu. Upstream is at 0.6.1. Could we get a version bump?

Thanks!

[James Westby (james-w)]

Hi,

Thanks for your report. I attach the Debian bug report requesting
that a newer version is packaged.

Thanks,

James

[GiuseppeVerde (launchpad-digitasaru)]

It's even more out of date now. Parrot in intrepid is version 0.4.13; Parrot.org is at 0.8.0.

[GiuseppeVerde (launchpad-digitasaru)]

0.9.1 came out last month: http://www.parrot.org/news/2009/Parrot-0.9.1
1.0 is due out on March 17 (in about a week an a half): http://www.parrot.org/news/vision-for-1_0

The parrot packages haven't been touched since (before?) intrepid. No modern parrot for Jaunty?!

[Allison Randal (allison)]

I've put Intrepid packages for Parrot 1.0 up on the parrot-dev PPA: https://launchpad.net/~parrot-dev/+archive/ppa

We got Parrot 1.0 into Debian unstable. (Debian bug #444707 is closed in bugs.debian.org, not sure why it's still listed as "New" here.)

It's really too late to get 1.0 into Ubuntu 9.04, but hopefully we can get 1.0 or 1.4 (the July stable release) into 9.10. I'll submit a sponsorship request for the Parrot 1.0 packages in a few weeks (I still want to add a couple of patches to it).

[Julien Lavergne (gilir)]

It can be sync from Debian unstable, changed from Ubuntu was merged :
- Build-depends and depends on libicu-dev is now optional and was removed (see 0.9-1 in Debian changelog).
- Ubuntu changes for generating control.in was merged (see 1.0.0-1 in Debian changelog).

It also build fine with a karmic pbuilder.

I think it's safe to sync it for karmic, so futur upload to Debian will go automatically to Ubuntu.

@Allison
If you have an objection about the sync, let me know. I will wait a few days to request officially the sync.

[Allison Randal (allison)]

Yes, that's a good idea. There is an rpath issue in the Debian packages that I want to fix either with a patch, or with the updated packages for the Parrot 1.4 in July (the issue is fixed in the latest monthly developer release), but I can make those changes in Debian first, leaving Ubuntu to sync.

I just generated updated source packages for karmic and ran them through my PPA (https://launchpad.net/~allison/+archive/ppa). It's fine on i386 and amd64, but unfortunately it doesn't build on the lpia architecture. The build was fine on lpia under intrepid (same tarball, same package specification), I'm not sure what's changed, possibly the version of GCC. I'm setting up a karmic lpia chroot to test it.

[Allison Randal (allison)]

Hmm... well, it builds just fine and passes all tests in my karmic lpia chroot. Perhaps it's something in the karmic PPA build environment?

[Allison Randal (allison)]

Okay, I've got it. Apparently on karmic, lpia builds with -Os by default (thanks to Robert Collins for digging up that tip). Among other things, -Os disables the -falign-functions optimization (in order to save space). Parrot can build with or without aligned function pointers, but it was detecting lpia as ordinary i386, and so expecting them, and failing on an assert. I added a config patch to detect the lpia architecture (using the "-gnulp" element of the arch-os-gnu triplet) and correctly set Parrot's config value for "aligned_funcptr" to 0. Parrot now successfully builds on karmic lpia.

[GiuseppeVerde (launchpad-digitasaru)]

So does this mean there're fresh-baked karmic packages coming, either in karmic or your ppa? Any chance for some rakudo packages as well? I'd like to play. :)

[Julien Lavergne (gilir)]

Good news, thanks Allison :)

I'll request the sync later today.

[Allison Randal (allison)]

Great. I've attached the .diff.gz for the 1.0 packages. I integrated the older Ubuntu packaging modifications back into the Debian packages, so the only differences now are the changelog (which incorporates the full Debian and Ubuntu packaging history), the control file (which lists MOTU as the maintainer), and the patch I just added for the lpia architecture (with a simple patching strategy, since the patch has already been merged upstream). The original tarball can be pulled from ftp://ftp.parrot.org/pub/parrot/releases/stable/1.0.0/parrot-1.0.0.tar.gz, or from Debian.

Requesting sponsorship. Should I subscribe ubuntu-universe-sponsors to this ticket, or create a new one?

[Julien Lavergne (gilir)]

Well, you should try to add this patch to Debian, so the package could migrate automaticly in the future from Debian to Ubuntu. It's always good to not differ between Debian and Ubuntu when it's possible (and it's the case here :)). After that, you can request a Sync from Debian by subscribing this bug to ubuntu-universe-sponsors.

[Allison Randal (allison)]

The fix has been merged upstream, so it will appear in the next set of Debian packages (1.4 in July this year). But I doubt I'd have much success convincing Debian that they need to update the 1.0 packages with a patch that only affects an Ubuntu distro version that hasn't even been released yet. The Parrot packages currently in Ubuntu (0.4.13) had quite a few differences from the Debian packages. Since I merged those changes back into Debian, the 1.0 Ubuntu packages are more similar to the Debian 1.0 packages than the 0.4.13 ones were.

What I'd like to do is get the patched 1.0 package into karmic now, so testing happens on a recent version of Parrot, then push the 1.4 packages into both Debian and Ubuntu in July.

[Julien Lavergne (gilir)]

Ok, so let's go for a merge of 1.0.0. Please mention this change in the future debian package, so we can drop the delta between Debian and Ubuntu for next packages.

The debdiff between Debian and Ubuntu is attached. It builds fine for Karmic (see my PPA : https://edge.launchpad.net/~gilir/+archive/unstable)

[Allison Randal (allison)]

Julien, thanks for the quilt patch, I'll merge that back upstream.

You lost a chunk of the changelog showing stable Ubuntu packages produced over the last year+, which is unfortunate. Also, you readded "Uploaders" to the Ubuntu control file, which only makes sense in Debian. Otherwise, the debdiff looks good.

Will it hurt my universe-contributors/MOTU application if you put your name on my packaging work? I'm still learning the process, maybe it's normal to remove the packager's name for sponsored uploads? But in Debian, my name stays on my packaging work, even for a sponsored upload.

[Robert Collins (lifeless)]

Normal practice is to have
[person]
details
[person]
details

within each changelog entry, and to have the overall entry attributed to the last person that touched it/did the upload.

In Ubuntu the uploaders field is unimportant; its relevant for debian because its an explicit out for the maintainer lock.

[Julien Lavergne (gilir)]

The changelog need only to include release on official repository for Debian or Ubuntu. The packages you mentioned was not upload to the Ubuntu official reporsitory.
I changed also the presentation of the last entry to add the proper name for the modification, and removed the Uploaders filed. But fell free to modify it directly if you think I miss something else.

[Allison Randal (allison)]

Robert, thanks, that makes sense. So, I won't merge in Julien's changes and submit a new .diff.gz/debdiff.

Julien, you can drop the "- Remove Uploaders field." from your section of the changelog, since I had already removed it in my packages. (I don't think removing the Uploaders field gets a changelog entry anyway, just like you wouldn't put in a changelog entry for changing the Maintainter to MOTU.) And, your latest version of the changelog entry makes a lot of sense, especially if the final changelog entry will be tagged with the name of the uploader.

With that one fix, I'm happy to have the packages submitted for review/upload. Thanks all!

[Julien Lavergne (gilir)]

Ok thanks Allison.

This is the final debdiff before review.

[GiuseppeVerde (launchpad-digitasaru)]

I've made the rakudo request a separate bug: https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+bug/381754

[GiuseppeVerde (launchpad-digitasaru)]

Thanks for the quick action! :)

[Allison Randal (allison)]

This debdiff looks great, Julien, thanks!

[Colin Watson (cjwatson)]

Speaking as the last Debian sponsor I'd be entirely happy to do an upload for the sake of lpia - just mail me the diff. (Sorry I didn't notice this bug for a while.)

[Colin Watson (cjwatson)]

I've sponsored this with two modifications (I didn't see the need for yet another round-trip):

 * There's no need to *remove* the Uploaders field in Ubuntu; while it's true that we don't use it, removing it is an unnecessary delta against Debian and we try to minimise those.
 * I adjusted the Maintainer field to match recent changes to http://wiki.ubuntu.com/DebianMaintainerField.
 * I inserted a recent changelog entry from Karmic, which was just for a no-change rebuild. (Of course the Ubuntu-specific changelog entries will go away anyway once we sync completely with Debian.)

Normally I wouldn't sponsor an Ubuntu change that added a patch system - we normally go along with existing packaging rather than trying to impose patch systems everywhere. Julien, you might like to consider that in future. However, in this case one of the Debian maintainers has already signed off on it so I waived that check.

Thanks to both of you for your work!

[Colin Watson (cjwatson)]

Uploaded now.

[Morten Kjeldgaard (mok0)]

Debian Bug closed.