Bug#811825: FaCT++ Debian package removal
Hello Roberto, I have some good news. But let me first explain the situation. What happened here is a social problem that sometimes occurs in Debian. The package has a single person as a maintainer. He didn't respond to the bugs, and nobody else felt responsible to work on the issue. On top of that, it is normally expected not to upload a package without the maintainers consent, so a non-responding maintainer can slow things down quite a lot. The reason I asked for a patch is that a soname bump requires a library transitions and for the next Debian release these were only allowed until November 5. The good news is, we moved the package to team maintenance, packaged version 1.2 and got a transition granted despite the freeze. So the problem should be resolved. With a team maintained package RC bugs will hopefully be fixed more quickly in the future. Here is the bug tracking the ppl 1.2 transition: https://bugs.debian.org/844100 Best, Tobias On 11/14/2016 02:05 PM, Roberto Bagnara wrote: > > Hello Tobias. > > Sorry for the delay in answering your message: I was traveling. > > On 11/11/2016 02:08 AM, Tobias Hansen wrote: >> I noticed today that ppl was removed from Debian testing due to two RC >> bugs. The problem is that ppl 1.2 has a new soname (14), that means it >> requires a library transition. We are now already past the library >> transition freeze for Debian stretch. Are you shure that the ABI of ppl >> changed with version 1.2, i.e. that this soname bump is required? > > No, I am not sure it is required: we bump it at any new release > just as a caution. > >> It would now probably be best to patch version 1.1 of ppl to have at >> least this version in the next Debian release. The previous mails from >> this bug report suggest that the patch that was discussed was not enough >> to fix the build with gcc 6. Could you provide a new patch for this? > > I am sorry, but I do not follow: why not switch to PPL 1.2, which > was released around 9 months ago and that is the current stable version? > More generally, we have no time to follow the evolution of Debian. > We have offered (multiple times) all the possible cooperation upstream, > but we got the impression the Debian people is not interested: > they do not use our mailing list and they seem totally uninterested to > explain the issues in non-Debian terms. I now repeat the offer to you: > if you are willing to explain what the problem is without assuming > we know anything about Debian, you are more than welcome, and the > problem will be solved very quickly. > Kind regards, > >Roberto > >> On Sat, 6 Aug 2016 14:34:14 +0200 Roberto Bagnara >> wrote: >>> The new version upstream (PPL 1.2, released in February 2016) solves >>> all problems wrt GCC 6. If upgrading to the latest upstream release >>> is not wanted (why?), then patches have been provided in this very issue. >>> Kind regards, >>> >>>Roberto >>> >> > >
Bug#811825: FaCT++ Debian package removal
Hello Tobias. Sorry for the delay in answering your message: I was traveling. On 11/11/2016 02:08 AM, Tobias Hansen wrote: > I noticed today that ppl was removed from Debian testing due to two RC > bugs. The problem is that ppl 1.2 has a new soname (14), that means it > requires a library transition. We are now already past the library > transition freeze for Debian stretch. Are you shure that the ABI of ppl > changed with version 1.2, i.e. that this soname bump is required? No, I am not sure it is required: we bump it at any new release just as a caution. > It would now probably be best to patch version 1.1 of ppl to have at > least this version in the next Debian release. The previous mails from > this bug report suggest that the patch that was discussed was not enough > to fix the build with gcc 6. Could you provide a new patch for this? I am sorry, but I do not follow: why not switch to PPL 1.2, which was released around 9 months ago and that is the current stable version? More generally, we have no time to follow the evolution of Debian. We have offered (multiple times) all the possible cooperation upstream, but we got the impression the Debian people is not interested: they do not use our mailing list and they seem totally uninterested to explain the issues in non-Debian terms. I now repeat the offer to you: if you are willing to explain what the problem is without assuming we know anything about Debian, you are more than welcome, and the problem will be solved very quickly. Kind regards, Roberto > On Sat, 6 Aug 2016 14:34:14 +0200 Roberto Bagnara > wrote: >> The new version upstream (PPL 1.2, released in February 2016) solves >> all problems wrt GCC 6. If upgrading to the latest upstream release >> is not wanted (why?), then patches have been provided in this very issue. >> Kind regards, >> >>Roberto >> > -- Prof. Roberto Bagnara Applied Formal Methods Laboratory - University of Parma, Italy mailto:bagn...@cs.unipr.it BUGSENG srl - http://bugseng.com mailto:roberto.bagn...@bugseng.com
Bug#806865: Bug#811825: FaCT++ Debian package removal
Hi Michael, its a bit sad that you did not responded to two RC bug reports since January this year and we are now past the point of allowed transitions. Since the package fits into the scope of the Debian Science team I wonder whether you might consider team maintenance of this package. If I do not hear from you I assume that you agree to this suggestion and I'll use dgit to create a packaging Git repository to simplify the work of the Debian Science team members fixing these bugs. Kind regards Andreas. -- http://fam-tille.de
Bug#811825: FaCT++ Debian package removal
Hi Roberto, I noticed today that ppl was removed from Debian testing due to two RC bugs. The problem is that ppl 1.2 has a new soname (14), that means it requires a library transition. We are now already past the library transition freeze for Debian stretch. Are you shure that the ABI of ppl changed with version 1.2, i.e. that this soname bump is required? It would now probably be best to patch version 1.1 of ppl to have at least this version in the next Debian release. The previous mails from this bug report suggest that the patch that was discussed was not enough to fix the build with gcc 6. Could you provide a new patch for this? Best, Tobias On Sat, 6 Aug 2016 14:34:14 +0200 Roberto Bagnara wrote: > The new version upstream (PPL 1.2, released in February 2016) solves > all problems wrt GCC 6. If upgrading to the latest upstream release > is not wanted (why?), then patches have been provided in this very issue. > Kind regards, > >Roberto >
Bug#811825: FaCT++ Debian package removal
On 08/06/2016 03:50 PM, Jonas Smedegaard wrote: > Hi Roberto, > > Quoting Roberto Bagnara (2016-08-06 14:34:14) >> On 08/06/2016 02:27 PM, Jonas Smedegaard wrote: >>> Quoting Dmitry Tsarkov (2016-08-04 22:09:56) I'm the implementer of the original FaCT++ system. After checking the project's makefiles I found out that the dependency from the ppl package is optional. The user might use additional commands to turn on options that require this package, but by default it is not needed. Could the dependencies for the Debian package be adjusted to reflect that fact? Alternatively I can make an intermediate release to completely remove the offending options. > [...] >>> If you can tell - e.g. by providing a patch - how to suppress ppl >>> then that would be nice, and adequate for our redistribution of >>> FaCT++ in case you prefer for postpone a release till you have other >>> more exciting changes. >> >> May I ask why ppl should be suppressed at all? >> The new version upstream (PPL 1.2, released in February 2016) solves >> all problems wrt GCC 6. If upgrading to the latest upstream release >> is not wanted (why?), then patches have been provided in this very >> issue. Kind regards, > > Whoops. Seems Dmitry (ill-adviced by me) posted his comment to a wrong > bugreport: FaCT++ is linked with a different ppl - not Debian-packaged > "ppl" from from http://www.cs.unipr.it/ppl/ but "cloog-ppl" from > http://www.CLooG.org/ . > > Sorry everyone for the confusion! > > To answer your question, Roberto (if still relevant): I simply trust > Dmitry as author of FaCT++ when he states that "by default [ppl] is not > needed". > > If ppl is somehow better than cloog-ppl, then perhaps now is a chance > to try convince Dmitry to switch? If I understand correctly, cloog-ppl is an obsolete library that uses (an old version of) ppl (i.e., the Parma Polyhedra Library), which does not provide the same functionality. Moreover, cloog-ppl cannot be replaced by ppl alone. Summarizing, my understanding is that the discussion on FaCT++ has nothing to do with this issue. Kind regards, Roberto -- Prof. Roberto Bagnara Applied Formal Methods Laboratory - University of Parma, Italy mailto:bagn...@cs.unipr.it BUGSENG srl - http://bugseng.com mailto:roberto.bagn...@bugseng.com
Bug#811825: FaCT++ Debian package removal
Hi Roberto, Quoting Roberto Bagnara (2016-08-06 14:34:14) > On 08/06/2016 02:27 PM, Jonas Smedegaard wrote: >> Quoting Dmitry Tsarkov (2016-08-04 22:09:56) >>> I'm the implementer of the original FaCT++ system. After checking >>> the project's makefiles I found out that the dependency from the ppl >>> package is optional. The user might use additional commands to turn >>> on options that require this package, but by default it is not >>> needed. Could the dependencies for the Debian package be adjusted to >>> reflect that fact? Alternatively I can make an intermediate release >>> to completely remove the offending options. [...] >> If you can tell - e.g. by providing a patch - how to suppress ppl >> then that would be nice, and adequate for our redistribution of >> FaCT++ in case you prefer for postpone a release till you have other >> more exciting changes. > > May I ask why ppl should be suppressed at all? > The new version upstream (PPL 1.2, released in February 2016) solves > all problems wrt GCC 6. If upgrading to the latest upstream release > is not wanted (why?), then patches have been provided in this very > issue. Kind regards, Whoops. Seems Dmitry (ill-adviced by me) posted his comment to a wrong bugreport: FaCT++ is linked with a different ppl - not Debian-packaged "ppl" from from http://www.cs.unipr.it/ppl/ but "cloog-ppl" from http://www.CLooG.org/ . Sorry everyone for the confusion! To answer your question, Roberto (if still relevant): I simply trust Dmitry as author of FaCT++ when he states that "by default [ppl] is not needed". If ppl is somehow better than cloog-ppl, then perhaps now is a chance to try convince Dmitry to switch? Regards, - Jonas -- * Jonas Smedegaard - idealist & Internet-arkitekt * Tlf.: +45 40843136 Website: http://dr.jones.dk/ [x] quote me freely [ ] ask before reusing [ ] keep private signature.asc Description: signature
Bug#811825: FaCT++ Debian package removal
On 08/06/2016 02:27 PM, Jonas Smedegaard wrote: > Hi Dmitry, > > Quoting Dmitry Tsarkov (2016-08-04 22:09:56) >> I'm the implementer of the original FaCT++ system. After checking the >> project's makefiles I found out that the dependency from the ppl >> package is optional. The user might use additional commands to turn on >> options that require this package, but by default it is not needed. >> Could the dependencies for the Debian package be adjusted to reflect >> that fact? Alternatively I can make an intermediate release to >> completely remove the offending options. >> >> Thanks for supporting FaCT++ in Debian! > > Thanks a lot, both for writing FaCT++ at all and for caring about its > health in Debian :-) > > If you can tell - e.g. by providing a patch - how to suppress ppl then > that would be nice, and adequate for our redistribution of FaCT++ in > case you prefer for postpone a release till you have other more exciting > changes. May I ask why ppl should be suppressed at all? The new version upstream (PPL 1.2, released in February 2016) solves all problems wrt GCC 6. If upgrading to the latest upstream release is not wanted (why?), then patches have been provided in this very issue. Kind regards, Roberto -- Prof. Roberto Bagnara Applied Formal Methods Laboratory - University of Parma, Italy mailto:bagn...@cs.unipr.it BUGSENG srl - http://bugseng.com mailto:roberto.bagn...@bugseng.com
Bug#811825: FaCT++ Debian package removal
Hi Dmitry, Quoting Dmitry Tsarkov (2016-08-04 22:09:56) > I'm the implementer of the original FaCT++ system. After checking the > project's makefiles I found out that the dependency from the ppl > package is optional. The user might use additional commands to turn on > options that require this package, but by default it is not needed. > Could the dependencies for the Debian package be adjusted to reflect > that fact? Alternatively I can make an intermediate release to > completely remove the offending options. > > Thanks for supporting FaCT++ in Debian! Thanks a lot, both for writing FaCT++ at all and for caring about its health in Debian :-) If you can tell - e.g. by providing a patch - how to suppress ppl then that would be nice, and adequate for our redistribution of FaCT++ in case you prefer for postpone a release till you have other more exciting changes. - Jonas -- * Jonas Smedegaard - idealist & Internet-arkitekt * Tlf.: +45 40843136 Website: http://dr.jones.dk/ [x] quote me freely [ ] ask before reusing [ ] keep private signature.asc Description: signature
Bug#811825: FaCT++ Debian package removal
Hi all, I'm the implementer of the original FaCT++ system. After checking the project's makefiles I found out that the dependency from the ppl package is optional. The user might use additional commands to turn on options that require this package, but by default it is not needed. Could the dependencies for the Debian package be adjusted to reflect that fact? Alternatively I can make an intermediate release to completely remove the offending options. Thanks for supporting FaCT++ in Debian! Best regards, Dmitry.
