Bug#1069139: developers-reference: out-of-date section "Make transition packages deborphan compliant"

[Holger Levsen]

On Sat, Apr 20, 2024 at 08:30:52PM +0200, Guillem Jover wrote:
> While I fully support properly marking obsolete packages by putting
> them in the (unfortunately misnamed :) oldlibs section (well excluding
> library-like depended on packages that get dropped as a mater of course).
> I wanted to note that I've received some pushback from the archive
> maintainers about this being considered unnecessary churn (paraphrasing
> from what ISTR). So it would be nice to clarify this with them before
> creating and proposing a procedure that might end up generating social
> friction.
 
I tend to agree. Already now maintainers forget to drop transitional
packages after having them been part of *two* releases (I have filed >400 bugs
requesting removal of such old transitional packages in the last 10y, so 
roughly 80 per release), so I don't think requiring them to do *more*
will work out nicely.

(also this adds workload to ftpmasters too.)


-- 
cheers,
Holger

 ⢀⣴⠾⠻⢶⣦⠀
 ⣾⠁⢠⠒⠀⣿⡁  holger@(debian|reproducible-builds|layer-acht).org
 ⢿⡄⠘⠷⠚⠋⠀  OpenPGP: B8BF54137B09D35CF026FE9D 091AB856069AAA1C
 ⠈⠳⣄

"In just 6 decades, roughly the life span of a blue whale, humans took blue 
whale
population down from 360,000 to just 1,000. In one century, whalers killed two
million baleen whales, which together weighed twice as much as all wild mammals
on Earth today."
https://www.theatlantic.com/science/archive/2021/11/whaling-whales-food-krill-iron/620604/


signature.asc
Description: PGP signature

Bug#1069139: developers-reference: out-of-date section "Make transition packages deborphan compliant"

[Guillem Jover]

Hi!

On Wed, 2024-04-17 at 04:24:16 +0200, Vincent Lefevre wrote:
> Package: developers-reference
> Version: 13.5
> Severity: normal

> Now that the deborphan package has been removed from unstable,
> the section "Make transition packages deborphan compliant" in
> "Best Packaging Practices" is out of date and should be updated.
> 
> See https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=1065312
> where "apt-mark auto ..." (for autoremove) is suggested as a
> replacement. But with it, putting transition packages to oldlibs
> is even more necessary.

While I fully support properly marking obsolete packages by putting
them in the (unfortunately misnamed :) oldlibs section (well excluding
library-like depended on packages that get dropped as a mater of course).
I wanted to note that I've received some pushback from the archive
maintainers about this being considered unnecessary churn (paraphrasing
from what ISTR). So it would be nice to clarify this with them before
creating and proposing a procedure that might end up generating social
friction.

Thanks,
Guillem

Bug#1069139: developers-reference: out-of-date section "Make transition packages deborphan compliant"

[Holger Levsen]

Hi Vincent,

On Wed, Apr 17, 2024 at 04:24:16AM +0200, Vincent Lefevre wrote:
> Now that the deborphan package has been removed from unstable,
> the section "Make transition packages deborphan compliant" in
> "Best Packaging Practices" is out of date and should be updated.
> 
> See https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=1065312
> where "apt-mark auto ..." (for autoremove) is suggested as a
> replacement. But with it, putting transition packages to oldlibs
> is even more necessary.

thanks for filing this bug report. Patches are very welcome, it's all
mark down now.


-- 
cheers,
Holger

 ⢀⣴⠾⠻⢶⣦⠀
 ⣾⠁⢠⠒⠀⣿⡁  holger@(debian|reproducible-builds|layer-acht).org
 ⢿⡄⠘⠷⠚⠋⠀  OpenPGP: B8BF54137B09D35CF026FE9D 091AB856069AAA1C
 ⠈⠳⣄

So what CAN we actually do? Well, individual decisions (eating less meat,
taking public transport, buying less fast fashion) are all important, but we
also need to change the system. As you may know, just 100 companies are
responsible for 71% of global emissions. (@JessicaTheLaw)
https://www.theguardian.com/sustainable-business/2017/jul/10/100-fossil-fuel-companies-investors-responsible-71-global-emissions-cdp-study-climate-change


signature.asc
Description: PGP signature

Bug#1069139: developers-reference: out-of-date section "Make transition packages deborphan compliant"

[Vincent Lefevre]

Package: developers-reference
Version: 13.5
Severity: normal

Now that the deborphan package has been removed from unstable,
the section "Make transition packages deborphan compliant" in
"Best Packaging Practices" is out of date and should be updated.

See https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=1065312
where "apt-mark auto ..." (for autoremove) is suggested as a
replacement. But with it, putting transition packages to oldlibs
is even more necessary.

-- System Information:
Debian Release: trixie/sid
  APT prefers unstable-debug
  APT policy: (500, 'unstable-debug'), (500, 'stable-updates'), (500, 
'stable-security'), (500, 'stable-debug'), (500, 'proposed-updates-debug'), 
(500, 'unstable'), (500, 'testing'), (500, 'stable'), (1, 'experimental')
Architecture: amd64 (x86_64)

Kernel: Linux 6.6.15-amd64 (SMP w/16 CPU threads; PREEMPT)
Locale: LANG=C.UTF-8, LC_CTYPE=C.UTF-8 (charmap=UTF-8), LANGUAGE not set
Shell: /bin/sh linked to /usr/bin/dash
Init: systemd (via /run/systemd/system)
LSM: AppArmor: enabled

developers-reference depends on no packages.

Versions of packages developers-reference recommends:
ii  debian-policy4.7.0.0
ii  libjs-sphinxdoc  7.2.6-6
ii  sensible-utils   0.0.22

Versions of packages developers-reference suggests:
pn  doc-base   
ii  elinks [www-browser]   0.16.1.1-4.1+b2
ii  firefox [www-browser]  124.0.1-1
ii  firefox-esr [www-browser]  115.9.1esr-1
ii  links [www-browser]2.29-1+b3
ii  links2 [www-browser]   2.29-1+b3
ii  lynx [www-browser] 2.9.0rel.0-2+b1
ii  w3m [www-browser]  0.5.3+git20230121-2+b3

-- no debconf information

-- 
Vincent Lefèvre  - Web: 
100% accessible validated (X)HTML - Blog: 
Work: CR INRIA - computer arithmetic / AriC project (LIP, ENS-Lyon)