Stuart Prescott:
Hi Niels[...] Versions of packages debputy-lsp depends on: ii dh-debputy [debputy] 0.1.67.1 [...]Hi Stuart Thanks for the bug report.I cannot reproduce this locally and looking at the changelog, I believe this was fixed in debputy/0.1.70 (stable-backports).Oh, thanks for the hint. You will have seen that I filed this against the debputy-lsp package (and I had checked that I had the latest version of that). I didn't realise that the dh-debputy package was also relevant to this function and so I hadn't checked that one.Upgrading dh-debputy to trixie-backports does indeed solve the problem. Sorry for the noise!
Thanks for clarifying and closing the bug after confirming the problem was resolved.
Perhaps the versioned dependency between them could be tighter for functionality reasons, not just API reasons?cheers Stuart
I do not have a great answer to this as I am not sure `debputy-lsp` is eligible for backports.
The `debputy-lsp` package is a dependency package. That is, you could uninstall `debputy-lsp` with no loss of functionality provided you kept its dependencies (or ran `debputy lsp features` and followed instructions for missing functionality). Part of this is because the LSP module uses a lot of private API to the point where it is more hassle (in my view) to maintain it separately from the rest of the `debputy` code. Both maintenance-wise but also bookkeeping to ensure that `debputy` have the relevant `Breaks` (etc.).
Secondly and equally important, `debputy-lsp` is deliberately a separate source package from `debputy`. This is because `debputy` is a key package, so anything it build-depends on or any of its binaries depends on become a key package. I added `debputy-lsp` as a convenience to install the optional dependencies that enable the linting, formatting and LSP module (so you do not have to check `debputy lsp features` and manually install the packages for the key features). Having a separate source package also gives me a lot more freedom to pull in editor specific (build-)dependencies. Like in the future having a `vim-debputy` or `elpa-debputy` package built from `debputy-lsp` if need be (etc.).
This all sums up to `debputy-lsp` that backporting `debputy-lsp` does not add any features (they are in `debputy`), so I am not sure it is really eligible for backporting. At the same time, clearly there is a UX problem given we have this bug.
I am open to input. I want `debputy` to solve UX problems in Debian packaging without adding new ones, where I can avoid it.
Best regards, Niels
OpenPGP_signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
