Scott & everyone,

On 9/16/23 19:04, Scott Kitterman wrote:
It's pretty relevant to your question.  If you had instead updated the existing 
packages from the new upstream, no transition would be needed.

I'm not entirely sure that no transition is needed, no. The major version was bumped to version 5, and I have no clue if this represent some incompatibility. This needs to be tested at least (see below).

Did you check with the existing maintainers to see what they thought?

Hum ... why do you think I've opened this thread?

As is usually the case in Debian, I think the answer is you work with the 
maintainers to figure out the best solution.  Ignoring them and hijacking the 
packages is not the right answer.


Plus I really dislike that you write the word "hijacking". That's not at all my intention, and /me opening this thread proves it.

Anyways, let's try to be more productive... I thought it was kind of obvious why I did things the way I did, but let me try to be more explicit.

It is my understanding that "pysnmp4" doesn't match "pysnmp-lextudio" released as version 5.0.20. We could rename the binary as "python3-pysnmp" (ommiting the "4"), and have a transition package, yes. But I have no confidence that they are drop-in replacements (I just don't know yet...).

The packages that I maintain do need the lextudio modules *now* (OpenStack moves fast, I cannot afford to wait 6 months), so I thought it was faster to address the current situation first with my uploads, so I can offer a continuity of what I already packaged (ie: Ironic and other OpenStack stuff). Though believe me, I want to do the things properly, and I have no intention of hijacking anyone's work. If someone wants to work on this with me, we can move the 4 new lextudio packages back in the team, of course. I have already too many packages under my responsibility, I'd love to have others working on them. Then I can act on the OpenStack part of things quickly once we agree on the way to go.

So let me ask once more the persons involved and/ore volunteering on this: what's your suggestion? There's actually 2 paths (and yes, I had the 2 paths in mind before Scott suggested replacing the older packages):

1/ We get the lextudio packages replace the older packages like Scott suggested. This would be a transition anyways, since we're moving to version 5 and there's a year of commits. If we're to do like this, then we need to make sure that: - the lextudio replacing packages are staged in experimental first, and look at the pseudo-excuse - the reverse dependencies have meaningful autopkgtest, otherwise uploading to experimental first is pointless, and then 2/ below becomes the best solution

2/ The other possibility, is what I suggested and envisioned first, by uploading the lextudio packages: open 9 bugs, and let maintainers switch to the new packages. This is IMO the safest path, as it wont create any breakage, though we'd have conflicting packages for a while, which can be annoying. We got to make sure the transition finishes quickly enough then (meaning, probably make the bugs RC after some time, so we make sure we can remove the older pysnmp/asn1 packages before Trixie freeze).

I don't think 2/ is an inferior way of doing things. I am still convinced that I did the right way, that uploading the *-lextudio packages was correct, so that current maintainers of reverse dependencies can at least test and see if everything goes well with the new packages, without destroying them. I also continue to have OpenStack packages working this way, and I'm not destroying reverse dependencies carelessly.

Please share your thoughts on how to do it,

Thomas Goirand (zigo)

Reply via email to