Bug#934872: RM: ocaml-usb/1.3.0-4 ocaml-sqlexpr/0.5.5-3 zeroinstall-injector/2.12.3-2 obus/1.1.5-6
Le 21/08/2019 à 20:07, Thomas Leonard a écrit : >> Again, this removal from testing is not a definitive removal from Debian >> and may be just temporary. I didn't mean to be hostile. > > Do you have an idea of when this will be? I should be able to look at > a workaround this weekend if it's not back by then. I expect it will take a few months before obus is in testing again. Note that I've also dropped liblwt-glib-ocaml-dev (as it is separate in newer upstream version of lwt which also needs to be updated), so you'll have to workaround that as well. Cheers, -- Stéphane
Bug#934872: RM: ocaml-usb/1.3.0-4 ocaml-sqlexpr/0.5.5-3 zeroinstall-injector/2.12.3-2 obus/1.1.5-6
On Wed, 21 Aug 2019 at 18:32, Stéphane Glondu wrote: > > Le 21/08/2019 à 18:26, Thomas Leonard a écrit : > >> Please remove the following packages from testing: [...] > >> * zeroinstall-injector, affected by #934340 > >> * obus, affected by #933992 > > > > Hi, > > > > I'm the maintainer of zeroinstall-injector and I just got notified > > that it was removed and found this issue. I believe that this removal > > was done in error. > > > > As I explained in > > https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=934340, there is no > > need to remove obus, which has made a new release without a camlp4 > > dependency (and also, camlp4 itself is now compatible with the new > > OCaml and therefore does not need to be removed). > > It might be compatible, but is still deprecated upstream. Its future is > unclear. Nobody volunteered to maintain it. I don't believe that's the case. From https://discuss.ocaml.org/t/the-end-of-camlp4/4216 (where someone with your name is commenting, so I thought you had seen it): On 7th Aug, diml wrote: > We feel like the time has come to officially abandon Camlp4. In order to help > distributions and other package managers deal with this fact, we will soon > release a 4.08 compatible version of Camlp4. This will in particular help > getting OCaml 4.08 in Debian. [...] > Of course, anyone interested in taking over the project is very welcome to do > so. Please get in touch if you are interested and we will happily arrange for > the transfer of ownership. Two days later, ivg replied saying: > I will step in, if nobody will volunteer. and later: > So just to close this discussion, I will take the burden to keep camlp4 alive > for 2 or more next releases. So I think it has a maintainer now, unless something happened since then. [...] > >> They prevent 62 other packages from migrating to testing. They are > >> already marked for autoremoval, but too far in the future. > > > > It was only marked for autoremoval due to this exact issue. Surely the > > purpose of the time delay is to let these things be fixed properly? > > So your suggestion was to freeze activity until the packages were > automatically removed from testing? My suggestion is to update camlp4 in Debian, which would avoid the problem, or wait for the NEW queue to drain, so that obus can be updated. > I firmly believe that accelerating > the removal from testing was legitimate here. Your package can migrate > back to testing later. > > > https://wiki.debian.org/ftpmaster_Removals seems to indicate that a > > maintainer should be given several weeks notice before their package > > is removed. > > https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=934340#17 was posted 8 > days before the removal and got not reply, so I thought you were OK with > this. Unfortunately, gmail sent that message to spam (weirdly, as I'd already replied to your previous email in the same conversation). > Again, this removal from testing is not a definitive removal from Debian > and may be just temporary. I didn't mean to be hostile. Do you have an idea of when this will be? I should be able to look at a workaround this weekend if it's not back by then. -- talex5 (GitHub/Twitter)http://roscidus.com/blog/ GPG: 5DD5 8D70 899C 454A 966D 6A51 7513 3C8F 94F6 E0CC
Bug#934872: RM: ocaml-usb/1.3.0-4 ocaml-sqlexpr/0.5.5-3 zeroinstall-injector/2.12.3-2 obus/1.1.5-6
Le 21/08/2019 à 18:26, Thomas Leonard a écrit : >> Please remove the following packages from testing: >> >> * ocaml-usb, affected by #933993 >> * ocaml-sqlexpr, affected by #933994 >> * zeroinstall-injector, affected by #934340 >> * obus, affected by #933992 > > Hi, > > I'm the maintainer of zeroinstall-injector and I just got notified > that it was removed and found this issue. I believe that this removal > was done in error. > > As I explained in > https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=934340, there is no > need to remove obus, which has made a new release without a camlp4 > dependency (and also, camlp4 itself is now compatible with the new > OCaml and therefore does not need to be removed). It might be compatible, but is still deprecated upstream. Its future is unclear. Nobody volunteered to maintain it. We are still strongly encouraged by upstream to get rid of it (and Fedora already did it). Once OCaml 4.08.x hits testing, my plan is to be more aggressive about removing it. For now, I just get rid of what gets in the way of updating other packages. > The message there says "The new version depends on (at least) two NEW > packages (lwt_log and ppxlib), and the NEW queue backlog is pretty big > now." but I don't believe the length of the NEW queue is a good reason > to remove working packages. It's removed from testing only. I don't believe the length of the NEW queue is a good reason to stop working at all if it is possible to progress otherwise. > It is possible to get the zeroinstall package (at least the binaries) > restored to testing while this issue is fixed? I don't believe so, but I don't have authority here. Anyway, I won't reinstate the camlp4 dependency in lwt, I'd rather update lwt which is pretty old now but that is not possible at the moment. >> They prevent 62 other packages from migrating to testing. They are >> already marked for autoremoval, but too far in the future. > > It was only marked for autoremoval due to this exact issue. Surely the > purpose of the time delay is to let these things be fixed properly? So your suggestion was to freeze activity until the packages were automatically removed from testing? I firmly believe that accelerating the removal from testing was legitimate here. Your package can migrate back to testing later. > https://wiki.debian.org/ftpmaster_Removals seems to indicate that a > maintainer should be given several weeks notice before their package > is removed. https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=934340#17 was posted 8 days before the removal and got not reply, so I thought you were OK with this. Again, this removal from testing is not a definitive removal from Debian and may be just temporary. I didn't mean to be hostile. Cheers, -- Stéphane
Bug#934872: RM: ocaml-usb/1.3.0-4 ocaml-sqlexpr/0.5.5-3 zeroinstall-injector/2.12.3-2 obus/1.1.5-6
Stéphane Glondu wrote: > Dear Release Managers, > > Please remove the following packages from testing: > > * ocaml-usb, affected by #933993 > * ocaml-sqlexpr, affected by #933994 > * zeroinstall-injector, affected by #934340 > * obus, affected by #933992 Hi, I'm the maintainer of zeroinstall-injector and I just got notified that it was removed and found this issue. I believe that this removal was done in error. As I explained in https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=934340, there is no need to remove obus, which has made a new release without a camlp4 dependency (and also, camlp4 itself is now compatible with the new OCaml and therefore does not need to be removed). The message there says "The new version depends on (at least) two NEW packages (lwt_log and ppxlib), and the NEW queue backlog is pretty big now." but I don't believe the length of the NEW queue is a good reason to remove working packages. It is possible to get the zeroinstall package (at least the binaries) restored to testing while this issue is fixed? > They prevent 62 other packages from migrating to testing. They are > already marked for autoremoval, but too far in the future. It was only marked for autoremoval due to this exact issue. Surely the purpose of the time delay is to let these things be fixed properly? https://wiki.debian.org/ftpmaster_Removals seems to indicate that a maintainer should be given several weeks notice before their package is removed. Thanks, -- talex5 (GitHub/Twitter)http://roscidus.com/blog/ GPG: 5DD5 8D70 899C 454A 966D 6A51 7513 3C8F 94F6 E0CC
Bug#934872: RM: ocaml-usb/1.3.0-4 ocaml-sqlexpr/0.5.5-3 zeroinstall-injector/2.12.3-2 obus/1.1.5-6
Package: release.debian.org Severity: normal User: release.debian@packages.debian.org Usertags: rm Dear Release Managers, Please remove the following packages from testing: * ocaml-usb, affected by #933993 * ocaml-sqlexpr, affected by #933994 * zeroinstall-injector, affected by #934340 * obus, affected by #933992 They prevent 62 other packages from migrating to testing. They are already marked for autoremoval, but too far in the future. Cheers, -- Stéphane -- System Information: Debian Release: bullseye/sid APT prefers testing APT policy: (990, 'testing'), (500, 'unstable'), (1, 'experimental') Architecture: amd64 (x86_64) Foreign Architectures: i386 Kernel: Linux 4.19.0-5-amd64 (SMP w/4 CPU cores) Locale: LANG=fr_FR.UTF-8, LC_CTYPE=fr_FR.UTF-8 (charmap=UTF-8), LANGUAGE=fr_FR.UTF-8 (charmap=UTF-8) Shell: /bin/sh linked to /usr/bin/dash Init: systemd (via /run/systemd/system)
