Bug#1054657: transition: r-bioc-biocgenerics
Le Fri, Nov 10, 2023 at 11:30:13PM +0100, Sebastian Ramacher a écrit : > > Can you please clarify whether you are talking about new dependencies or > reverse dependencies above? Thanks. Hi Sebastian, I am talking about the reverse-dependencies of the packages that we need to upload to NEW. These are new dependencies of packages that need to go through the Bioconductor transition. Here is an example: In Bioconductor 3.17, the new package S4Arrays was depended on by DelayedArray. This reverse dependency of a new package in Bioconductor is a new dependency on a new package in Debian (r-bioc-delayed array started to depend on r-bioc-s4arrays). The upload of r-bioc-s4arrays during the 3.17 transition is one of the causes of the delays. Last week I thought that looking at the reverse-dependencies of packages that are new in Bioconductor 3.18 would be a good heuristic to find if we will need to introduce new packages in Debian. This is the main reason I expresesd my thoughts in terms of reverse-dependency of new packages, instead of new dependencies on new packages. However yesterday me and Andreas figured out that this was not a good heuristic. Here is an example: In Bioconductor 3.18, DelayedArray starts to depend on SparseArray. However, SparseArray is not new in Bioconductor 3.18. It was introudced in Bioconductor 3.17 but we did not notice and package it because nothing was depending on it. In conclusion, taking the point of view of reverse-dependencies of new packages in Bioconductor was not as fruitful as I thought and I will try to stick to the point of view of new dependencies on new packages in Debian to avoid further confusions. I hope it clarifies. -- Charles
Bug#1055755: transition: libre/rem/baresip
Am 10.11.23 um 22:34 schrieb Sebastian Ramacher: Did you coordinate this plan with the maintainer of libre? Not yet, but as they are copied, let's just wait for their comment.
Bug#1054657: transition: r-bioc-biocgenerics
On 2023-11-10 17:43:43 +0900, Charles Plessy wrote: > Hi Paul and everybody, > > we are finding a way to compare the R dependencies of the Bioconductor > packages in Debian and in Bioc 3.18. It uncovers some core packages > introduced in Bioc 3.17, but which only start to have > reverse-dependencies in 3.18, meaning that they are not in Debian yet > since we did not have a reason to package them at that time. > > It seems that I was too confident that no new core dependencies would be > introduced, and I feel guilty for that. Still I need to add that > despite the stress on both sides, I really would like no not be told "We > do not care about [the information you sent]" again, while "I am sorry > but I do not see the relevance" or "I am sorry but this is not enough" > is so much more informative and less conflictual. I did appreciate a lot > the care you took in expressing your criticisms in your email yesterday. I am sorry that my terse mail crossed you the wrong way. I am afraid that your first paragraph keeps me confused and I wonder if we are talking past each other. For this transition we are interested in packages that have to go through NEW since they are new (Build-)Depends of packages involved in the r-bioc-transition. New reverse dependencies, i.e., NEW packages that depend on packages that are part of the transition, but are not (Build-)Depends of the current set of packages in the archive, do not affect this transition. Can you please clarify whether you are talking about new dependencies or reverse dependencies above? Thanks. Cheers -- Sebastian Ramacher
Bug#1054657: transition: r-bioc-biocgenerics
Hi Paul, Am Fri, Nov 10, 2023 at 08:39:18PM +0100 schrieb Paul Gevers: > On 10-11-2023 11:56, Andreas Tille wrote: > > The only new dependency we need is SparseArray. However, we cannot > > upload the package to new since it needs r-bioc-s4arrays (>= 1.1.6) for > > building it. In other words: We need to start the transition before we > > can package SparseArray. > > You're totally free use experimental for that to get SparseArray through > NEW. I assume you don't need 100% of the transition, but only a (hopefully > tiny) bit. So you could upload the newer version of r-bioc-biocgenerics and > reverse depending packages up to where you need it to build SparseArray. > ... What about a compromise. We start the transition, r-bioc-s4arrays is in level 3 and given that ftpmaster might accept the new package in 3-5 days when we ping kindly it will be available before we are in the last level. I'd like to remind that quite some delays are caused by autopkgtest errors on rarely used architectures. My experience of past transitions tells me that a single new package in the beginning will not have some measurable effect on the total length of the transition. Kind regards and thanks for your work as release team Andreas. -- http://fam-tille.de
Bug#1055755: transition: libre/rem/baresip
Control: tags -1 moreinfo On 2023-11-10 17:56:31 +0100, Bastian Germann wrote: > Package: release.debian.org > Control: affects -1 libre > X-Debbugs-Cc: li...@packages.debian.org > User: release.debian@packages.debian.org > Usertags: transition > Severity: normal > Control: forwarded -1 > https://release.debian.org/transitions/html/auto-libre.html > > libre, rem, and baresip are available in experimental, details on the update > at #967266. > I suggest to upload libre, then rem, then baresip to unstable. > The auto-generated Ben files of auto-libre and auto-rem are okay and > the packages build fine but are relying on being updated together (the > experimental baresip does not build with unstable libre/rem, while > experimental libre/rem break baresip). Did you coordinate this plan with the maintainer of libre? Cheers -- Sebastian Ramacher
Processed: Re: Bug#1055755: transition: libre/rem/baresip
Processing control commands: > tags -1 moreinfo Bug #1055755 [release.debian.org] transition: libre/rem/baresip Added tag(s) moreinfo. -- 1055755: https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=1055755 Debian Bug Tracking System Contact ow...@bugs.debian.org with problems
Bug#1055699: transition: spglib
Control: tags -1 confimred On 2023-11-10 10:42:38 +0200, Andrius Merkys wrote: > Package: release.debian.org > Severity: normal > User: release.debian@packages.debian.org > Usertags: transition > > Hello, > > I would like to request a transition slot for spglib > (experimental -> unstable) due to soname bump. Current ben tracker [1] > is OK. Please go ahead. Cheers -- Sebastian Ramacher
Processed: Re: Bug#1055751: transition: wolfssl
Processing control commands: > tags -1 = confirmed Bug #1055751 [release.debian.org] transition: wolfssl Added tag(s) confirmed; removed tag(s) moreinfo. -- 1055751: https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=1055751 Debian Bug Tracking System Contact ow...@bugs.debian.org with problems
Bug#1055751: transition: wolfssl
Control: tags -1 = confirmed On 2023-11-10 19:13:22 +0100, Bastian Germann wrote: > Am 10.11.23 um 18:03 schrieb Sebastian Ramacher: > > Control: tags -1 moreinfo > > > > On 2023-11-10 15:57:27 +0100, Bastian Germann wrote: > > > The auto-generated Ben file is okay and all reverse dependencies build > > > fine. > > > > What's the status of the reverse dependencies? Do they build > > successfully with the new version of wolfssl? > > Yes, as I have written. I should have finished with reading that sentence. Please go ahead. Cheers -- Sebastian Ramacher
Bug#1054657: transition: r-bioc-biocgenerics
Hi, On 10-11-2023 11:56, Andreas Tille wrote: The only new dependency we need is SparseArray. However, we cannot upload the package to new since it needs r-bioc-s4arrays (>= 1.1.6) for building it. In other words: We need to start the transition before we can package SparseArray. You're totally free use experimental for that to get SparseArray through NEW. I assume you don't need 100% of the transition, but only a (hopefully tiny) bit. So you could upload the newer version of r-bioc-biocgenerics and reverse depending packages up to where you need it to build SparseArray. Alternatively, you can send packages to NEW that you build with locally newer versions (however you create them). Once accepted, the buildds will only build the non-uploaded archs once the right version becomes available. In other words, uploads to NEW don't require all their build dependencies already (at the right version) in Debian. We need to rebuild that package anyways to make it eligible for migration, so an (maybe from your perspective) early upload is not more waste of time with the current archive settings, but of course the preparation in experimental is a bit more work from your side. However, that's what we request in nearly all transitions: prepare as much as possible *before* we actually start the transition. On 09-11-2023 14:59, Charles Plessy wrote: But if this is important for you we can surely write ack messages faster. I'm convinced it would help. Having said that, that doesn't need to be long proza, mostly a sign "we're on top of this and that". (Which doesn't mean you have to work 24/7 to fix it, of course you are also a volunteer). When we know what's on your radar, we can also more effectively point at potential gaps that we may spot. This is what I feel when I see the new request from your team coming at the last minute and not as a debriefing of the previous transition. I'm sorry to hear that it felt like a new request. I think for us it felt more like "lets treat this more like we do other transitions". And yes, maybe we should do debriefings once in a while, but we are not accustomed to do that and I believe that in the cases that would benefit most from a debriefing those involved rather want to move on. Paul OpenPGP_signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Bug#1055751: transition: wolfssl
Am 10.11.23 um 18:03 schrieb Sebastian Ramacher: Control: tags -1 moreinfo On 2023-11-10 15:57:27 +0100, Bastian Germann wrote: The auto-generated Ben file is okay and all reverse dependencies build fine. What's the status of the reverse dependencies? Do they build successfully with the new version of wolfssl? Yes, as I have written.
Processed: Re: Bug#1055751: transition: wolfssl
Processing control commands: > tags -1 moreinfo Bug #1055751 [release.debian.org] transition: wolfssl Added tag(s) moreinfo. -- 1055751: https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=1055751 Debian Bug Tracking System Contact ow...@bugs.debian.org with problems
Bug#1055751: transition: wolfssl
Control: tags -1 moreinfo On 2023-11-10 15:57:27 +0100, Bastian Germann wrote: > Package: release.debian.org > Control: affects -1 wolfssl > X-Debbugs-Cc: wolf...@packages.debian.org > User: release.debian@packages.debian.org > Usertags: transition > Severity: normal > Control: forwarded -1 > https://release.debian.org/transitions/html/auto-wolfssl.html > > wolfssl is available in experimental with libwolfssl41. > This transition is from libwolfssl35. > The auto-generated Ben file is okay and all reverse dependencies build fine. What's the status of the reverse dependencies? Do they build successfully with the new version of wolfssl? Cheers -- Sebastian Ramacher
Processed: transition: libre/rem/baresip
Processing control commands: > affects -1 libre Bug #1055755 [release.debian.org] transition: libre/rem/baresip Added indication that 1055755 affects libre > forwarded -1 https://release.debian.org/transitions/html/auto-libre.html Bug #1055755 [release.debian.org] transition: libre/rem/baresip Set Bug forwarded-to-address to 'https://release.debian.org/transitions/html/auto-libre.html'. -- 1055755: https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=1055755 Debian Bug Tracking System Contact ow...@bugs.debian.org with problems
Bug#1055755: transition: libre/rem/baresip
Package: release.debian.org Control: affects -1 libre X-Debbugs-Cc: li...@packages.debian.org User: release.debian@packages.debian.org Usertags: transition Severity: normal Control: forwarded -1 https://release.debian.org/transitions/html/auto-libre.html libre, rem, and baresip are available in experimental, details on the update at #967266. I suggest to upload libre, then rem, then baresip to unstable. The auto-generated Ben files of auto-libre and auto-rem are okay and the packages build fine but are relying on being updated together (the experimental baresip does not build with unstable libre/rem, while experimental libre/rem break baresip).
Bug#1055751: transition: wolfssl
Package: release.debian.org Control: affects -1 wolfssl X-Debbugs-Cc: wolf...@packages.debian.org User: release.debian@packages.debian.org Usertags: transition Severity: normal Control: forwarded -1 https://release.debian.org/transitions/html/auto-wolfssl.html wolfssl is available in experimental with libwolfssl41. This transition is from libwolfssl35. The auto-generated Ben file is okay and all reverse dependencies build fine.
Processed: transition: wolfssl
Processing control commands: > affects -1 wolfssl Bug #1055751 [release.debian.org] transition: wolfssl Added indication that 1055751 affects wolfssl > forwarded -1 https://release.debian.org/transitions/html/auto-wolfssl.html Bug #1055751 [release.debian.org] transition: wolfssl Set Bug forwarded-to-address to 'https://release.debian.org/transitions/html/auto-wolfssl.html'. -- 1055751: https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=1055751 Debian Bug Tracking System Contact ow...@bugs.debian.org with problems
Processed: Re: bookworm-pu: package systemd/252.18-1~deb12u1
Processing control commands: > retitle -1 bookworm-pu: package systemd/252.19-1~deb12u1 Bug #1053681 [release.debian.org] bookworm-pu: package systemd/252.18-1~deb12u1 Changed Bug title to 'bookworm-pu: package systemd/252.19-1~deb12u1' from 'bookworm-pu: package systemd/252.18-1~deb12u1'. -- 1053681: https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=1053681 Debian Bug Tracking System Contact ow...@bugs.debian.org with problems
Processed: Re: Bug#1054657: transition: r-bioc-biocgenerics
Processing control commands: > tags -1 - moreinfo Bug #1054657 [release.debian.org] transition: r-bioc-biocgenerics Removed tag(s) moreinfo. -- 1054657: https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=1054657 Debian Bug Tracking System Contact ow...@bugs.debian.org with problems
Bug#1054657: transition: r-bioc-biocgenerics
Control: tags -1 - moreinfo Hi, Am Fri, Nov 10, 2023 at 05:43:43PM +0900 schrieb Charles Plessy: > Hi Paul and everybody, I admit Paul's mail was convincing enough to dive deeper into this. I also need to admit that hacking together some scripts doing the job was less effort than I expected, finally. Sorry for sounding stubborn in the beginning. > We will complete the checks and package the new dependencies and submit > the to NEW next week The only new dependency we need is SparseArray. However, we cannot upload the package to new since it needs r-bioc-s4arrays (>= 1.1.6) for building it. In other words: We need to start the transition before we can package SparseArray. Kind regards Andreas. -- http://fam-tille.de
Bug#1054657: transition: r-bioc-biocgenerics
Hi Paul and everybody, we are finding a way to compare the R dependencies of the Bioconductor packages in Debian and in Bioc 3.18. It uncovers some core packages introduced in Bioc 3.17, but which only start to have reverse-dependencies in 3.18, meaning that they are not in Debian yet since we did not have a reason to package them at that time. It seems that I was too confident that no new core dependencies would be introduced, and I feel guilty for that. Still I need to add that despite the stress on both sides, I really would like no not be told "We do not care about [the information you sent]" again, while "I am sorry but I do not see the relevance" or "I am sorry but this is not enough" is so much more informative and less conflictual. I did appreciate a lot the care you took in expressing your criticisms in your email yesterday. We will complete the checks and package the new dependencies and submit the to NEW next week. I suppose that we just have to go through he whole process and notify you when it is done? Have a good week-end, Charles -- Charles Plessy Nagahama, Yomitan, Okinawa, Japan Debian Med packaging team http://www.debian.org/devel/debian-med Tooting from home https://framapiaf.org/@charles_plessy - You do not have my permission to use this email to train an AI -
Bug#1055699: transition: spglib
Package: release.debian.org Severity: normal User: release.debian@packages.debian.org Usertags: transition Hello, I would like to request a transition slot for spglib (experimental -> unstable) due to soname bump. Current ben tracker [1] is OK. Rebuild results for reverse dependencies: * avogadrolibs: OK * c2x: OK * cod-tools: needs a trivial patch, I will upload it * cp2k: OK * gabedit: OK Thanks, Andrius [1] https://release.debian.org/transitions/html/auto-spglib.html
