ok, I missed this was on the pypi package.
I've tried to make a patch over 3.2.2. For now, I've uploaded it only to
https://test.pypi.org/project/GDAL/3.2.2.1/ . Can you test that and
confirm that works properly ? If so, I'll push it to pypi official.
I've tracked the changes in a patch/3.2.2.1 branch, sitting for now in
my fork:
https://github.com/OSGeo/gdal/compare/v3.2.2..rouault:patch/3.2.2.1?expand=1
I'll push that to OSGeo/gdal as well and tag once confirmed things work fine
Hoping I'm not going into troubles doing this stuff outside of our usual
release processes...
Even
Le 25/03/2022 à 13:13, snehal waychal a écrit :
Dear Even, dear Bas,
Thank you very much for the quick response and highlightingthe
Debian/Ubuntu release policy aspects. And also about the link to the
ubuntugis-unstable PPA.
>/what you discuss here is all about the patch & backport policy of the/
>/Debian GDAL package. You can try to file a bug to Debian and point to/
>/the patch you'd want to see backported,/
But just to be sure I haven’t misunderstoodyour response or
misrepresented the original issue. The patch release I described is
also needed in the official releases of the GDAL **python** package.
If I am not mistaken, the GDAL team is taking care of source
distributions on https://pypi.org/project/GDAL/
<https://pypi.org/project/GDAL/>. I looked into released pypi versions
and if I am not mistaken there is no patch release for v3.2.2 with fix
for setuptools compatibility issue.
So, if we could make a new patch release of the/*python* package of
GDAL/ and push the sdist package to pypi.org <http://pypi.org>
(something like 3.2.2.1, as I described in the previous email) then
that would also solve the issue. Because as python developers, we
install *python* packages via pip/pipenv/poetry and those package
managers would pick the new patch release from pypi.org
<http://pypi.org>. (The GDAL library component libgdal-dev v3.2.2 will
still come from the debian system package repo and there is no issue
with that).
Hope I am not missing something obvious here. Please let me know.
Thank you again!
Regards,
Snehal
On Fri, Mar 25, 2022 at 12:29 PM Sebastiaan Couwenberg
<sebas...@xs4all.nl> wrote:
On 3/25/22 12:07, Even Rouault wrote:
> what you discuss here is all about the patch & backport policy
of the
> Debian GDAL package. You can try to file a bug to Debian and
point to
> the patch you'd want to see backported, but I can't promise if
there
> would be interest in their maintenance team to create an updated
package
> with it (my understanding is that even if we'd release a new
3.2.x patch
> release, it wouldn't be packaged in LTS distributions. I'm not
sure how
> much of that is linked to Debian policy or availability of
people that
> do the work)
Packages in Debian stable releases only get updates to fix bugs of
severity important or higher [0]. GDAL patch releases also contain
changes for lower severity issues, it's not worth the effort to
vet all
those changes. Any changes to packages in stable also risk
introducing
regressions which are highly undesirable in LTS releases known for
their
stability.
People should be maintaining their own packaging repositories
where they
host packages with changes for their needs that cannot be easily
upstreamed to the package in the distribution itself. Scratching your
own itch was a corner stone of Open Source that people are seemingly
forgetting or never having known about in the first place.
[0]
https://www.debian.org/doc/manuals/developers-reference/pkgs.en.html#special-case-uploads-to-the-stable-and-oldstable-distributions
Kind Regards,
Bas
--
GPG Key ID: 4096R/6750F10AE88D4AF1
Fingerprint: 8182 DE41 7056 408D 6146 50D1 6750 F10A E88D 4AF1
_______________________________________________
gdal-dev mailing list
gdal-dev@lists.osgeo.org
https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/gdal-dev
--
http://www.spatialys.com
My software is free, but my time generally not.
_______________________________________________
gdal-dev mailing list
gdal-dev@lists.osgeo.org
https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/gdal-dev
