Hi Dmitry, On Sun, Aug 17, 2025 at 06:38:27PM +1000, Dmitry Smirnov wrote: > On Monday, 4 August 2025 9:52:45 pm Australian Eastern Standard Time Helmut > Grohne wrote: > > Dear mysql-workbench maintainer and ftp team, > > > > a month has passed since filing a suggestion to remove mysql-workbench > > from Debian. It was suggested for removal due to not being part of bookworm > > nor trixie and having accumulated a long-standing RC bug. > > * #1000093: mysql-workbench: depends on obsolete pcre3 library > > Last modified: 1 year, 1 month > > For the record, I am really unhappy about hasty removal of my package.
I take issue with calling the removal hasty. Timeline: * 2018-03-27: mysql-workbench is removed from testing * 2021-11-18: RC bug filed * 2024-01-09: A patch is provided * 2024-06-15: Last modification of the RC bug * 2025-06-18: Removal suggestion filed * 2025-08-04: Removal requested * 2025-08-13: Removal performed mysql-workbench has not been part in any of buster, bullseye, bookworm or trixie. > Due to grave circumstances in my life I'm responding slowly, but > why should I watch those removal suggestions like a hawk, to avoid > packages that I care about being swiftly swiped away over trivial matters?!? The time frame we are talking about is at least seven years. Evidently, the matter was not trivial enough to get mysql-workbench into tesing in that time frame. I argue that maybe someone should have checked whether it migrated to trixie during that time and have checked why. As that did not happen, the package was evidently neglected. > The RC bug (that I've missed) regarding pcre3 dependency contained a patch > that could simply be applied, and(!) in my last upload in March 2025 > I have already removed pcre3 dependency [1] so the bug was already fixed > yet not closed. This is sad to hear. But then the pre-removal notice gave you a reminder and another almost two months to fix the bug metadata. > It is most unfortunate to have the package removed quite fast over low impact > bug that was already fixed (without closing the issue)... :( I agree that it is unfortunate in this case. On the other hand, we need to draw a line somewhere. Historically, we have erred on not removing packages and the existence of RC-buggy packages poses a cost to QA teams. In removing more than 100 RC-buggy packages and thus closing more than 150 RC-bugs, the work for QA teams in unstable has become significantly easier. > Forgetting to close a bug by changelog should not have lead to package > removal. This is true, but maybe the extra two reminders of that missed bug could have resulted in you closing it. > If possible please undo the removal as MySQL-Workbench is a heavy package > that would be difficult to process by ftp-masters if package goes through > the NEW process again. Sadly, it now is removed and needs to go through NEW again. Reintroducing it, is a bit more effort indeed. If the copyright file did not live up to Debian standards, fixing that would be a good idea anyway. In any case, I do not object to reintroducing it. Again, please excuse the bad experience you had with the automatic removal process. Rest assured, that this is an exceptional case. Helmut
