control: tag -1 + moreinfo Dear Stephan,
On Sat 21 Nov 2020 at 12:20PM GMT, Stephan Lachnit wrote: > Currently the package libinih uses some heavy patches, which aren't upstream > and aren't used by any other distro. I'm in favor of dropping this, but the > current maintainer disagrees and we weren't able to make any progess in the > discussion, so I want to put this here. Parts of the discussion can be found > on > this MR: https://salsa.debian.org/yangfl-guest/inih/-/merge_requests/2 > > To understand this, one has to look a bit at the history behind inih. Upstream > was designed as a static library for embedded devices, and therefore has a lot > of compile time options. At this point, the current maintainer created a patch > to make all compile time option available on runtime. > > When gamemode started using inih, I wanted to get rid of shipped inih code and > upstreamed a build system to inih for a shared library, that any distro can > use. This was done in version 48. Due to the popularity of gamemode, inih is > now found in most major distros (all without Debian's patches): > https://repology.org/project/inih/versions > > There is a notable "exception": inih is not in Ubuntu's main repository. This > is a bit weird because gamemode is in main, but with the shipped inih source > which got dropped from 1.6, meaning gamemode is stuck on 1.5.1 on Ubuntu. I'm > not sure why, but I suspect the heavy patches make it harder to be included in > main. > > Because the library was designed for embedded use cases where every little bit > of performance matters, the runtime patch was refused upstream. Dropping the > runtime patch from Debian actually isn't problem, no reverse dependency of > libinih uses compile time options anyway. However, due to the history of inih > in Debian is has the soversion 1, while upstream is soversion 0. > > I want to drop the vendorisation of Debian and start a transition to soversion > 0 (which is also a reason I contact the Technical Committee, as it's not clear > how this would be done). A transition is needed anyway since dropping the > patch > is a breaking change anyway. If the Technical Committee agrees to this, I > would > also gladly help to maintain this package since it is 2 version behind > upstream > since almost half a year and I maintain gamemode, which is directly affected > by > this. Your message it not clear enough for TC members not familiar with the packages in question to understand what the dispute is. We cannot wade through discussions on salsa -- we need a summary. Please make another attempt at summarising the dispute. Please also indicate which of the TC's powers (as granted by the constitution) you are asking us to make use of. Thanks. -- Sean Whitton
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
