Hi Mattia, On Sun, May 3, 2020 at 12:11 PM Mattia Rizzolo <[email protected]> wrote: > > On Sun, May 03, 2020 at 09:39:51AM +0300, Sergei Golovan wrote: > > Today, I've got an autoremoval mails for erlang and a whole bunch of related > > packages because of #958841 (see [1] for details). > > > > Is it really necessary to remove erlang and all its reverse dependencies, > > while it's elixir-lang which is the culprit? > > Well, that bug is assigned to *both* erlang and erlang-elixir, and in > fact, the fix was done in erlang, so it really much looks like an erlang > bug?
It wasn't really a fix, I just bumped the erlang-pcre virtual package version exactly to make elixir-lang uninstallable because it's broken. > > Now, it seems that wasn't enough, since erlang-elixir still doesn't pass > its autopkgtest with the new erlang; worse, it makes elixir-lang > uninstallable. Elixir-lang (at least its current version in Debian) uses some unstable interface in Erlang, so it's sometimes requires to be rebuilt with the new erlang. As far as I can see now, elixir-lang is basically unmaintained, so nobody will ask for binNMU (it should be sufficient, but I havent't checked this). > > > As far as I can see, removal > > of all erlang related packages (which includes elixir-lang) should lead to > > moving them back except for elixir-lang which is now uninstallable. > > What do you mean with "moving back"? After erlang, elixir-lang and many other packages will be removed from testing, nothing should prevent erlang and other packages to move back again, because there wouldn't be a problem with them in testing anymore. elixir-lang, on the other hand remains uninstallable in unstable (which is fine by me, since it isn't maintained anyway). > > > On the other hand, just removing elixir-lang from testing achieves the same > > outcome without removing/moving back many packages. > > The autoremoval is quite confusing (perhaps actually buggy?) when bugs > are assigned against multiple packages. In fact, only erlang is being > autoremoved, elixir-lang is being removed only due to being a rdep of > erlang. I see that. May be it's a bug in autoremovals. As for now, erlang version in testing isn't buggy, and the bugreport was actually filed against 1:22.3.2+dfsg-1 which was in unstable at the time of the bugreport. > > Please read with more attention the text of the bug: > > [1] https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=958841 > | Due to the nature of this issue, I filed this bug report against > | both packages. Can you please investigate the situation and reassign the > | bug to the right package? > I'm confident that if you reassign this bug to erlang only (and properly > changing the 'found', 'fixed' and 'done' values), nothing > would be autoremoved, simply because that bug won't affect erlang in > testing anymore. It's not a desirable output here. This means that without some changes in elixir-lang new erlang packages will never reach testing. I'm not sure that an unmaintained package should stall development of its reverse dependencies like that. > > Lastly, I recommend you just don't spend too much time on understanding > the autorm situation, rather just fix whatever is broken and make > elixir-lang pass the autopkgtest again; the autorm date is more than a > month away after all. I would say that binNMU would be sufficient for now, but I wouldn't like to constantly monitor this elixir-lang situation. Cheers! -- Sergei Golovan
