Bug#994551: libcifpp1: please split off static files to separate package
Hi Andrius, On Mon, Sep 27, 2021 at 09:20:51AM +0300, Andrius Merkys wrote: > > Normally I would concur here, as I do not read [1] as allowing anyone to > override severe violations of the Debian policy. Moreover, autorm > deadline is reset each time a message arrives on this bug thread. You are right, but well, lots of mailboxes recieved >10 mails for the very same issue. That does not lead to more productivity and since I considered the issue settled I took the freedom to take some means I would not use under normal circumstances. Resetting the autoremoval counter again if new processing might have taken longer than expected would require observing things closely and take another amount of energy. Sorry for pushing my pragmatic approach here. > Nevertheless, there are no real conflicts involving libcifpp1 as of now, > and since 1.0.1-5 is in NEW already, there should be none in future > releases too. I admit I've asked for rejection to rather upload 1.0.1-4 which was never released. Kind regards Andreas. > [1] https://www.debian.org/Bugs/Developer#severities -- http://fam-tille.de
Bug#994551: libcifpp1: please split off static files to separate package
Hi Nilesh, On 2021-09-25 17:55, Nilesh Patra wrote: > Actually, this bug is now triggering an ugly autorm on several packages. > And since it needs to travel via NEW, they might end up getting removed > from testing. > > @Andrius, since you wrote: > >> So far, there has not been other libcifppX binary package, thus no >> damage is done. However, future libcifppX packages should not contain >> static files, in particular these: > and since this is not doing any damage for now, do you think we could > reduce the severity to important for now? > We cannot do another upload on top of the one we will be sending to NEW > w/o hooping via NEW again, anyway, > so I find it safe to drop the severity for now. Normally I would concur here, as I do not read [1] as allowing anyone to override severe violations of the Debian policy. Moreover, autorm deadline is reset each time a message arrives on this bug thread. Nevertheless, there are no real conflicts involving libcifpp1 as of now, and since 1.0.1-5 is in NEW already, there should be none in future releases too. [1] https://www.debian.org/Bugs/Developer#severities Cheers, Andrius
Bug#994551: libcifpp1: please split off static files to separate package
Hi Étienne, On 2021-09-24 23:51, Étienne Mollier wrote: > I took the liberty to implement the change you suggest, and push > to Salsa [1]. Since this is an RC bug which propagates on > several packages, and since it would have to go through NEW, for > manual review; I thought that time would be of the essence. > Normally, my change builds, passes autopkgtest, and passes > piuparts, but I am not against a second pair of eyes to make > sure things are alright. > > [1]: https://salsa.debian.org/med-team/libcifpp Many thanks for implementing the fix. Despite Andreas having uploaded the package to NEW already, I reviewed your changes and all seems fine to me. Even better that you have checked it with piuparts. Best, Andrius
Bug#994551: libcifpp1: please split off static files to separate package
Hi Nilesh, Nilesh Patra, on 2021-09-25: > > Hi Étienne, all, > > > I took the liberty to implement the change you suggest, and push > > to Salsa [1]. > > I do not see your changes on salsa, the last commit is 3 months old > there. > Did you forget to push? Yes, I forgot, sorry about that; I just pushed as soon as I realized it. Thanks for the notice, :) -- .''`. Étienne Mollier : :' : gpg: 8f91 b227 c7d6 f2b1 948c 8236 793c f67e 8f0d 11da `. `' sent from /dev/tty1, please excuse my verbosity `- signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Bug#994551: libcifpp1: please split off static files to separate package
Hi Étienne, all, > I took the liberty to implement the change you suggest, and push > to Salsa [1]. I do not see your changes on salsa, the last commit is 3 months old there. Did you forget to push? > Since this is an RC bug which propagates on > several packages, and since it would have to go through NEW, for > manual review; Actually, this bug is now triggering an ugly autorm on several packages. And since it needs to travel via NEW, they might end up getting removed from testing. @Andrius, since you wrote: > So far, there has not been other libcifppX binary package, thus no > damage is done. However, future libcifppX packages should not contain > static files, in particular these: and since this is not doing any damage for now, do you think we could reduce the severity to important for now? We cannot do another upload on top of the one we will be sending to NEW w/o hooping via NEW again, anyway, so I find it safe to drop the severity for now. Let me know? Nilesh signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Bug#994551: libcifpp1: please split off static files to separate package
Control: tag -1 patch Hi Maarten, Hi Andrius, On Fri, 17 Sep 2021 18:43:28 +0300 Andrius Merkys wrote: > I have just noticed that libcifpp1 violates section 8.2 of Debian policy: Thanks Andrius for catching this! > I suggest splitting them off to a separate Architecture: all package, > for example, libcifpp-data. This package would then be responsible for > keeping mmCIF dictionary via cron, and other packages requiring these > dictionaries would then depend on libcifpp-data. I took the liberty to implement the change you suggest, and push to Salsa [1]. Since this is an RC bug which propagates on several packages, and since it would have to go through NEW, for manual review; I thought that time would be of the essence. Normally, my change builds, passes autopkgtest, and passes piuparts, but I am not against a second pair of eyes to make sure things are alright. [1]: https://salsa.debian.org/med-team/libcifpp (I left the changelog entry unreleased, to leave room for further changes prior upload if you deem needed.) Have a nice day, :) -- .''`. Étienne Mollier : :' : gpg: 8f91 b227 c7d6 f2b1 948c 8236 793c f67e 8f0d 11da `. `' sent from /dev/pts/2, please excuse my verbosity `- signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Bug#994551: libcifpp1: please split off static files to separate package
Package: libcifpp1 Version: 1.0.1-3 Severity: serious Hello, I have just noticed that libcifpp1 violates section 8.2 of Debian policy: > If your package contains files whose names do not change with each > change in the library shared object version, you must not put them in > the shared library package. Otherwise, several versions of the shared > library cannot be installed at the same time without filename clashes, > making upgrades and transitions unnecessarily difficult. So far, there has not been other libcifppX binary package, thus no damage is done. However, future libcifppX packages should not contain static files, in particular these: /etc/cron.weekly/libcifpp /usr/share/libcifpp/isomers.txt.gz /usr/share/libcifpp/mmcif_ddl.dic.gz /usr/share/libcifpp/mmcif_pdbx_v50.dic.gz I suggest splitting them off to a separate Architecture: all package, for example, libcifpp-data. This package would then be responsible for keeping mmCIF dictionary via cron, and other packages requiring these dictionaries would then depend on libcifpp-data. Andrius
