Bug#1033170: libitext-rups-java: Does not work at all
On Tue, Mar 28, 2023 at 12:05:26PM +0200, Emmanuel Bourg wrote: > Le 2023-03-28 05:28, tony mancill a écrit : > > > The upload is ready. Any concerns? > > > > $ reverse-depends libitext-rups-java > > No reverse dependencies found > > > > $ reverse-depends -b libitext-rups-java > > No reverse dependencies found > > +1 for removing libitext-rups-java, and maybe libitext-rtf-java too. Thank you for responding. Removing libitext-rtf-java is a good idea. I opted to keep the debdiff minimal for this upload in deference to the Release Team, but could be convinced otherwise if anyone feels strongly about it. signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Bug#1033170: libitext-rups-java: Does not work at all
Le 2023-03-28 05:28, tony mancill a écrit : The upload is ready. Any concerns? $ reverse-depends libitext-rups-java No reverse dependencies found $ reverse-depends -b libitext-rups-java No reverse dependencies found +1 for removing libitext-rups-java, and maybe libitext-rtf-java too.
Bug#1033170: libitext-rups-java: Does not work at all
On Mon, Mar 20, 2023 at 07:37:48AM -0700, tony mancill wrote: > However, given the low popcon count and the brokenness of the package, > that may be the best path. If there are users of libitext-rups-java who > think otherwise, now would be the time to speak up. > > ... > > Returning to the focus of this bug, let's wait to see if there are > other opinions regarding rups. If not, I will prepare an upload of the > libitext-java source package that removes the libitext-rups-java and > file the bugs needed to remove the binary. The upload is ready. Any concerns? $ reverse-depends libitext-rups-java No reverse dependencies found $ reverse-depends -b libitext-rups-java No reverse dependencies found Thanks, tony signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Bug#1033170: libitext-rups-java: Does not work at all
Hi Jorge, On Sun, Mar 19, 2023 at 10:45:32PM -0400, Jorge Moraleda wrote: > Hello Tony, > > I propose that we either reduce the severity, ignore the bug for the > > bookworm release cycle, or remove only the libitext-rups-java binary > > package from bookworm. > > > Thank you. I believe the appropriate action is #3 (remove libitext-rups-java > binary > package from bookworm) because it is useless as it stands. Action #3 (removing libitext-rups-java) makes it much more difficult to fix the bug in unstable or experimental, and will make it impossible to introduce the fix to a bookworm point release. It means that the package will have to go through NEW again to be be part of Debian. However, given the low popcon count and the brokenness of the package, that may be the best path. If there are users of libitext-rups-java who think otherwise, now would be the time to speak up. > Two other comments for the record > (1) An apt list libitext* > reveals > libitext-java/testing,unstable,testing,now 2.1.7-13 all > [installed,automatic] > libitext-rtf-java/testing,unstable,testing 2.1.7-13 all > libitext-rups-java/testing,unstable,testing 2.1.7-13 all > libitext1-java/testing,unstable,testing 1.4-7 all > libitext5-java/testing,unstable,testing 5.5.13.3-2 all > > I am not familiar with libitext, so I don't know if we really need to > maintain multiple versions of it in the repo. From the comments on the > ubuntu bug report. It appears that versions 1 and 2 are hopelessly updated, > but I do see that there are indeep packages that depend on the older > versions. Not everything is going to run on the latest version, and there are multiple versions of the package in Debian because they are needed. libitext1-java is a dependency of libdoxia-java, which is part of Maven. I don't see how the multiple itext packages are directly related to the problem with rups. > > (2) If there is a maintainer for libitext-rups-java I would suggest they > upgrade to use at least libitext5-java and then reupload to > experimental. (Version 5 is not so old, but upstream is already at 7). Upgrade requests should be filed as wishlist bugs against the source package. However, if we're going to remove libitext-rups-java from the distribution, then a potential packager could start fresh with a new, separate package for https://github.com/itext/i7j-rups. Returning to the focus of this bug, let's wait to see if there are other opinions regarding rups. If not, I will prepare an upload of the libitext-java source package that removes the libitext-rups-java and file the bugs needed to remove the binary. Thank you, tony signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Bug#1033170: libitext-rups-java: Does not work at all
Hello Tony, I propose that we either reduce the severity, ignore the bug for the > bookworm release cycle, or remove only the libitext-rups-java binary > package from bookworm. > Thank you. I believe the appropriate action is #3 (remove libitext-rups-java binary package from bookworm) because it is useless as it stands. Two other comments for the record (1) An apt list libitext* reveals libitext-java/testing,unstable,testing,now 2.1.7-13 all [installed,automatic] libitext-rtf-java/testing,unstable,testing 2.1.7-13 all libitext-rups-java/testing,unstable,testing 2.1.7-13 all libitext1-java/testing,unstable,testing 1.4-7 all libitext5-java/testing,unstable,testing 5.5.13.3-2 all I am not familiar with libitext, so I don't know if we really need to maintain multiple versions of it in the repo. From the comments on the ubuntu bug report. It appears that versions 1 and 2 are hopelessly updated, but I do see that there are indeep packages that depend on the older versions. (2) If there is a maintainer for libitext-rups-java I would suggest they upgrade to use at least libitext5-java and then reupload to experimental. (Version 5 is not so old, but upstream is already at 7). On Sun, Mar 19, 2023 at 8:50 PM tony mancill wrote: > On Sat, Mar 18, 2023 at 05:42:12PM -0400, Jorge Moraleda wrote: > > Package: libitext-rups-java > > Version: 2.1.7-13 > > Severity: grave > > Justification: renders package unusable > > X-Debbugs-Cc: jorge.moral...@gmail.com > > > > Dear Maintainer, > > > > The package does not work at all. Based on the following Ubuntu bug > report it > > appears the version packaged is too old to work: > > https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/libitext-java/+bug/802021 > > Hi Jorge, > > Thanks for filing the bug. You don't describe the desired behavior, but > when I run "java -jar /usr/share/java/itext-rups.jar" I don't get a GUI > for PDF manipulation, so there is definitely something broken there. > > By filing a severity grave [0] bug against this binary package you have > created a release-critical bug that also affects libitext-java [1], > which has almost 3 installs [2] and impacts multiple reverse > dependencies. And we're in the midst of the freeze for the bookwork > release [3]. > > I propose that we either reduce the severity, ignore the bug for the > bookworm release cycle, or remove only the libitext-rups-java binary > package from bookworm. > > Thank you, > tony > > [0] https://www.debian.org/Bugs/Developer#severities > [1] https://tracker.debian.org/pkg/libitext-java > [2] https://qa.debian.org/popcon.php?package=libitext-java > [3] https://release.debian.org/bookworm/freeze_policy.html >
Bug#1033170: libitext-rups-java: Does not work at all
On Sat, Mar 18, 2023 at 05:42:12PM -0400, Jorge Moraleda wrote: > Package: libitext-rups-java > Version: 2.1.7-13 > Severity: grave > Justification: renders package unusable > X-Debbugs-Cc: jorge.moral...@gmail.com > > Dear Maintainer, > > The package does not work at all. Based on the following Ubuntu bug report it > appears the version packaged is too old to work: > https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/libitext-java/+bug/802021 Hi Jorge, Thanks for filing the bug. You don't describe the desired behavior, but when I run "java -jar /usr/share/java/itext-rups.jar" I don't get a GUI for PDF manipulation, so there is definitely something broken there. By filing a severity grave [0] bug against this binary package you have created a release-critical bug that also affects libitext-java [1], which has almost 3 installs [2] and impacts multiple reverse dependencies. And we're in the midst of the freeze for the bookwork release [3]. I propose that we either reduce the severity, ignore the bug for the bookworm release cycle, or remove only the libitext-rups-java binary package from bookworm. Thank you, tony [0] https://www.debian.org/Bugs/Developer#severities [1] https://tracker.debian.org/pkg/libitext-java [2] https://qa.debian.org/popcon.php?package=libitext-java [3] https://release.debian.org/bookworm/freeze_policy.html signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Bug#1033170: libitext-rups-java: Does not work at all
Package: libitext-rups-java Version: 2.1.7-13 Severity: grave Justification: renders package unusable X-Debbugs-Cc: jorge.moral...@gmail.com Dear Maintainer, The package does not work at all. Based on the following Ubuntu bug report it appears the version packaged is too old to work: https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/libitext-java/+bug/802021 -- System Information: Debian Release: bookworm/sid APT prefers testing APT policy: (800, 'testing'), (500, 'testing-security'), (50, 'experimental'), (50, 'unstable') Architecture: amd64 (x86_64) Kernel: Linux 6.1.0-6-amd64 (SMP w/4 CPU threads; PREEMPT) Kernel taint flags: TAINT_FIRMWARE_WORKAROUND, TAINT_OOT_MODULE, TAINT_UNSIGNED_MODULE Locale: LANG=en_US.UTF-8, LC_CTYPE=en_US.UTF-8 (charmap=UTF-8), LANGUAGE not set Shell: /bin/sh linked to /usr/bin/dash Init: systemd (via /run/systemd/system) LSM: AppArmor: enabled Versions of packages libitext-rups-java depends on: ii libitext-java 2.1.7-13 libitext-rups-java recommends no packages. libitext-rups-java suggests no packages. -- no debconf information
