Bug#1011437: Should bind9-libs be shipped in bookworm?

[Ondřej Surý]

> On 9. 1. 2023, at 14:50, Bernhard Schmidt  wrote:
> 
> Hi,
> 
>>> not about src:bind9, building the bind9-libs binary package (yes, this is 
>>> totally confusing, even to Debian tooling)
>> I though that had been already removed: 
>> https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=1011538 
>> 
>> But I guess something went wrong and perhaps **just** binary bind9-libs was 
>> removed instead.
> 
> Eheehe, this explains 
> https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=1018016
> 
> Unless you beat me to it, I'll give it another RM stab.


Go ahead, my head is fully in the BIND 9 OpenSSL 3 refactoring review, so I 
could
use less distractions :)

Ondrej
--
Ondřej Surý (He/Him)
ond...@sury.org

Bug#1011437: Should bind9-libs be shipped in bookworm?

[Bernhard Schmidt]

Hi,

not about src:bind9, building the bind9-libs binary package (yes, this 
is totally confusing, even to Debian tooling)


I though that had been already removed: 
https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=1011538 



But I guess something went wrong and perhaps **just** binary bind9-libs 
was removed instead.


Eheehe, this explains 
https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=1018016


Unless you beat me to it, I'll give it another RM stab.

Bernhard

Bug#1011437: Should bind9-libs be shipped in bookworm?

[Ondřej Surý]

> On 9. 1. 2023, at 14:34, Bernhard Schmidt  wrote:
> 
> Am 09.01.23 um 14:30 schrieb Ondřej Surý:
> 
> Hi Ondrej,
> 
 Looking at #942501 and #942502, the intention seems to be to not
 ship bind9-libs in bookworm.
>>> 
>>> I agree, Ccing Ondrej who has done the heavy lifting on this package.
>>> 
>>> AFAICT there is no binary reverse dependency in unstable, and #942501
>>> "just" needs a NMU for the removed build-dep.
>>> 
>>> Ondrej, what do you think?
>> No, not really. The bind9-libs package contains shared libraries for
>> bind9, bind9-dnsutils, bind9-host and bind9-utils package.
>> We could drop bind9-dev, but that was required by the bind9-dyndb-ldap
>> plugin - that's the thing that might be useful to solve, but then again, 
>> RedHat
>> chose GPL for the project, so there's little we can do in both upstream and
>> downstream - we certainly don't want to re-licence whole BIND 9 to GPL
>> because of the bundled plugin. I would rather keep them separate even
>> if it's painful.
> 
> Hum, either I got something totally wrong or we are talking about different 
> things.
> 
> This thread is about src:bind9-libs, still on the 9.11 code train and building

Sorry, my bad. Then no. We must not ship src:bind9-libs in bookwork.

> not about src:bind9, building the bind9-libs binary package (yes, this is 
> totally confusing, even to Debian tooling)

I though that had been already removed: 
https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=1011538

But I guess something went wrong and perhaps **just** binary bind9-libs was 
removed instead.

Ondrej
--
Ondřej Surý (He/Him)
ond...@sury.org

Bug#1011437: Should bind9-libs be shipped in bookworm?

[Bernhard Schmidt]

Am 09.01.23 um 14:30 schrieb Ondřej Surý:

Hi Ondrej,


Looking at #942501 and #942502, the intention seems to be to not
ship bind9-libs in bookworm.


I agree, Ccing Ondrej who has done the heavy lifting on this package.

AFAICT there is no binary reverse dependency in unstable, and #942501
"just" needs a NMU for the removed build-dep.

Ondrej, what do you think?


No, not really. The bind9-libs package contains shared libraries for

bind9, bind9-dnsutils, bind9-host and bind9-utils package.

We could drop bind9-dev, but that was required by the bind9-dyndb-ldap
plugin - that's the thing that might be useful to solve, but then again, 
RedHat

chose GPL for the project, so there's little we can do in both upstream and
downstream - we certainly don't want to re-licence whole BIND 9 to GPL
because of the bundled plugin. I would rather keep them separate even
if it's painful.


Hum, either I got something totally wrong or we are talking about 
different things.


This thread is about src:bind9-libs, still on the 9.11 code train and 
building


libbind-dev
libbind-export-dev
libbind9-161
libdns-export1110
libdns-export1110-udeb
libdns1110
libirs-export161
libirs-export161-udeb
libirs161
libisc-export1105
libisc-export1105-udeb
libisc1105
libisccc-export161
libisccc-export161-udeb
libisccc161
libisccfg-export163
libisccfg-export163-udeb
libisccfg163
liblwres161

not about src:bind9, building the bind9-libs binary package (yes, this 
is totally confusing, even to Debian tooling)


Bernhard

Bug#1011437: Should bind9-libs be shipped in bookworm?

[Ondřej Surý]

> On 8. 1. 2023, at 21:41, Bernhard Schmidt  wrote:
> 
> On 22/05/22 11:47 PM, Adrian Bunk wrote:
> 
>> Looking at #942501 and #942502, the intention seems to be to not
>> ship bind9-libs in bookworm.
> 
> I agree, Ccing Ondrej who has done the heavy lifting on this package.
> 
> AFAICT there is no binary reverse dependency in unstable, and #942501
> "just" needs a NMU for the removed build-dep.
> 
> Ondrej, what do you think?


No, not really. The bind9-libs package contains shared libraries for

bind9, bind9-dnsutils, bind9-host and bind9-utils package.

We could drop bind9-dev, but that was required by the bind9-dyndb-ldap
plugin - that's the thing that might be useful to solve, but then again, RedHat
chose GPL for the project, so there's little we can do in both upstream and
downstream - we certainly don't want to re-licence whole BIND 9 to GPL
because of the bundled plugin. I would rather keep them separate even
if it's painful.

Ondrej
--
Ondřej Surý (He/Him)
ond...@sury.org

Bug#1011437: Should bind9-libs be shipped in bookworm?

[Bernhard Schmidt]

On 22/05/22 11:47 PM, Adrian Bunk wrote:

> Looking at #942501 and #942502, the intention seems to be to not
> ship bind9-libs in bookworm.

I agree, Ccing Ondrej who has done the heavy lifting on this package.

AFAICT there is no binary reverse dependency in unstable, and #942501
"just" needs a NMU for the removed build-dep.

Ondrej, what do you think?

Bernhard

Bug#1011437: Should bind9-libs be shipped in bookworm?

[Adrian Bunk]

Source: bind9-libs
Version: 1:9.11.19+dfsg-2.1
Severity: serious
Tags: bookwoem sid
Control: block -1 by 942502 942501

Looking at #942501 and #942502, the intention seems to be to not
ship bind9-libs in bookworm.