Bug#913997: Bug#977709: Bug#913997: what is the current maintainer view on this ?
Christian Kastner dijo [Tue, Jan 19, 2021 at 09:55:19AM +0100]: > > We are considering NMU of vmdb 0.22. The Salsa repo. is at > > https://salsa.debian.org/ckk/vmdb2 > > Given that a new upstream version usually does not fit the profile of an > NMU: just to be clear, the vmdb2 Maintainer indicated that because of > limited availability in Dec/Jan, he'd be OK with an NMU if need be. Or even better, if need be -- If you can update the Git repo with the changes and notify me, I can promise to look and the changes and perform an upload within 24hr
Bug#913997: what is the current maintainer view on this ?
Hi all, On 19.01.21 07:55, Pirate Praveen wrote: > Antonio, can we go ahead with the renaming now? Just to be clear, personally, I agree with the both original and the current cmdtest maintainers that this issue has been caused by the other upstream, and the other upstream's collaboration on a resolution has been poor. I really only wanted to comment on the situation with regards to reverse dependencies, as I had new objective data on that one issue being discussed, which would probably lead to another outcome with regards to that issue. In particular, another issue I did not want to comment on is that popcon indicates that cmdtest does have some regular users, and I believe that this must be weighed as well. A NEWS entry for a rename might resolve this, but that's not for me to decide. Best, Christian
Bug#913997: what is the current maintainer view on this ?
Hi all, On 19.01.21 01:51, Ryutaroh Matsumoto wrote: >> Ryutaroh and I have been working with vmdb2 upstream on a new release >> with support for more architectures. > > We are considering NMU of vmdb 0.22. The Salsa repo. is at > https://salsa.debian.org/ckk/vmdb2 Given that a new upstream version usually does not fit the profile of an NMU: just to be clear, the vmdb2 Maintainer indicated that because of limited availability in Dec/Jan, he'd be OK with an NMU if need be. Best, Christian
Bug#913997: what is the current maintainer view on this ?
On Tue, 19 Jan 2021 00:29:18 +0100 Christian Kastner wrote: > Hi all, > > On Sat, 19 Dec 2020 Pirate Praveen wrote:>> Renaming the binary is > harder, because there are at least two > >> packages that use yarn from cmdtest during the build: gitano and > >> vmdb2. they would need to be ported, and that's up to their > >> maintainers and upstreams, who I assume won't be happy about it. > > > > Now only xauth and vmdb2 shows up as reverse build dependencies. I > > have asked their maintainers if they are open to the name change in > > https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=977709 > Ryutaroh and I have been working with vmdb2 upstream on a new release > with support for more architectures. > > During this process, upstream indicated that vmdb2 will move away from > yarn (cmdtest) to Subplot (not yet packaged). > > A quick grep of the sources of xauth, the other reverse dependency of > cmdtest, gets no results for the string 'yarn'. So the conflicting > binary does not seem to be used there. > > So, strictly from the point of view of its reverse dependencies, holding > off on renaming the 'yarn' binary would probably not make much sense. > > Best, > Christian Thanks Christian for your comment. Antonio, can we go ahead with the renaming now? -- Sent from my Android device with K-9 Mail. Please excuse my brevity.
Bug#913997: what is the current maintainer view on this ?
Hi all, > Ryutaroh and I have been working with vmdb2 upstream on a new release > with support for more architectures. We are considering NMU of vmdb 0.22. The Salsa repo. is at https://salsa.debian.org/ckk/vmdb2 Please also have a look at https://salsa.debian.org/ckk/vmdb2/-/merge_requests/4 Best regards, Ryutaroh Matsumoto
Bug#913997: what is the current maintainer view on this ?
Hi all, On Sat, 19 Dec 2020 Pirate Praveen wrote:>> Renaming the binary is harder, because there are at least two >> packages that use yarn from cmdtest during the build: gitano and >> vmdb2. they would need to be ported, and that's up to their >> maintainers and upstreams, who I assume won't be happy about it. > > Now only xauth and vmdb2 shows up as reverse build dependencies. I > have asked their maintainers if they are open to the name change in > https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=977709 Ryutaroh and I have been working with vmdb2 upstream on a new release with support for more architectures. During this process, upstream indicated that vmdb2 will move away from yarn (cmdtest) to Subplot (not yet packaged). A quick grep of the sources of xauth, the other reverse dependency of cmdtest, gets no results for the string 'yarn'. So the conflicting binary does not seem to be used there. So, strictly from the point of view of its reverse dependencies, holding off on renaming the 'yarn' binary would probably not make much sense. Best, Christian
Bug#913997: what is the current maintainer view on this ?
On Wed, 3 Jun 2020 12:08:29 -0300 Antonio Terceiro wrote: > Now, with that said, I understand that the current situation creates a > technical problem for a growing ecosystem in Debian. Unfortunately I > don't have any easy solution to propose. > > I will not block technical work to solve this in the correct way, and as > gatekeeper that will need to be involved in a solution I will review and > apply patches that make sense. > > Dropping the Provides: would be relatively easy. Would you take a merge request for this? > Renaming the binary is harder, because there are at least two packages > that use yarn from cmdtest during the build: gitano and vmdb2. they > would need to be ported, and that's up to their maintainers and > upstreams, who I assume won't be happy about it. Now only xauth and vmdb2 shows up as reverse build dependencies. I have asked their maintainers if they are open to the name change in https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=977709
Bug#913997: what is the current maintainer view on this ?
On Tue, May 26, 2020 at 08:05:31PM +0200, Paolo Greppi wrote: > The issue has been raised again on the yarnpkg side: > https://bugs.debian.org/940511 > > Antonio, what is your point of view ? > Do you think we can fix this for the Bookworm release ? I think that the people who created this problem in the first place showed no empathy and were not flexible at all even after presented with evidence that there were existing projects from before theirs that were already using the yarn name. I agree with the original maintainer that this namespace takeover attempt feels like bullying. "Mine is bigger than yours" is not a good argument for anything in Debian. I have a lot of other priorities, and I only adopted cmdtest to keep vmdb2 in testing since autopkgtest uses it for building vm images. I don't plan to spend a single minute of my time working towards changing the status quo (with a caveat, see below). Now, with that said, I understand that the current situation creates a technical problem for a growing ecosystem in Debian. Unfortunately I don't have any easy solution to propose. I will not block technical work to solve this in the correct way, and as gatekeeper that will need to be involved in a solution I will review and apply patches that make sense. Dropping the Provides: would be relatively easy. Renaming the binary is harder, because there are at least two packages that use yarn from cmdtest during the build: gitano and vmdb2. they would need to be ported, and that's up to their maintainers and upstreams, who I assume won't be happy about it. signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Bug#913997: what is the current maintainer view on this ?
The issue has been raised again on the yarnpkg side: https://bugs.debian.org/940511 Antonio, what is your point of view ? Do you think we can fix this for the Bookworm release ? Thanks, Paolo
