Bug#895247: libgnomecanvas: Intent to Adopt
On Thu, 12 Apr 2018 at 18:09:32 +0100, Simon McVittie wrote: > If, having considered that, you still want to adopt these > libraries, I don't think anyone will stop you. Hi Adrian, Do you still intend to take over maintenance of libgnomecanvas? If you do, please prepare an upload fixing #887868, setting yourself as Maintainer, removing the GNOME team and making their descriptions indicate that this library is deprecated/dead upstream. > Do you (either or both of you) also intend to adopt the language bindings > src:libgnomecanvasmm2.6 (in theory currently maintained by Deng Xiyue, > most recent maintainer upload 2009)? If you also intend to adopt that language binding, then I think you should go ahead: Deng Xiyue last touched it in 2009, so I think I can say on behalf of the GNOME team that it might as well be considered orphaned. Its reverse dependencies are flowcanvas, ladish and monster-masher. It would make sense for libgnomecanvas and libgnomecanvasmm2.6 to have the same maintainer IMO. > libgnomecanvas > and libgnomecanvasmm2.6 seem to have failed their automatic conversion > from svn (there are repositories in /git/pkg-gnome on Alioth but they are > empty); I think I still have the right incantations in my shell history > on alioth to do a fallback conversion with git-svn, if that would be > helpful to you. Alioth has now gone away, but I can try to dig out these packages from https://alioth-archive.debian.org/svn/pkg-gnome.tar.xz if you would find that helpful. Thanks, smcv
Bug#895247: libgnomecanvas: Intent to Adopt
Am Donnerstag, den 12.04.2018, 23:32 +0300 schrieb Adrian Bunk: > On Thu, Apr 12, 2018 at 06:09:32PM +0100, Simon McVittie wrote: > > On Thu, 12 Apr 2018 at 15:03:11 +0200, Gert Wollny wrote: > > > Hi Adrian, > > > > (Adrian won't have seen this unless he's subscribed to the bug or > > package, because bug submitters don't normally get copies of bug > > mail in the Debian BTS; adding him to Cc.) > > Thanks. > > > > as the maintainer of amide[1], a package that depends on > > > libgnomecanvas I was also already thinking about adopting this > > > package and libart-lgpl. In other words I'd happily join to co- > > > maintain these two packages. > > I am not a huge fan of co-maintaining low-effort packages,[1] > either you or me maintaining a package would be fine for me. Okay, that's fine. Since you started it, I'd say continue with these packages, and if you need help just ping me. > > Do you (either or both of you) also intend to adopt the language > > bindings src:libgnomecanvasmm2.6 (in theory currently maintained by > > Deng Xiyue, most recent maintainer upload 2009)? I didn't intend to look at these, I only looked at dependencies of what I maintain myself. Best, Gert
Bug#895247: libgnomecanvas: Intent to Adopt
On Thu, Apr 12, 2018 at 11:44:30PM +0100, Simon McVittie wrote: > On Thu, 12 Apr 2018 at 23:32:45 +0300, Adrian Bunk wrote: > > On Thu, Apr 12, 2018 at 06:09:32PM +0100, Simon McVittie wrote: > > > particularly if you plan to modify things that are annoying to do via > > > a patch series, like the build system. > > > > I do not see any reason for changing something like the build system. > > Perhaps I was overestimating how much is needed to make it work with the > current (i.e. 2015) gnome-common package. It seems to have been part of > the mass-bug-filing for uses of deprecated or removed macros, but maybe > it only used the deprecated macros and not the removed ones. >... It would FTBFS had a macro been removed (but that would have been fixable by copying the macro). The only deprecated macro from the list in the bug report it seems to use is GNOME_COMPILE_WARNINGS, and that was one of the "up to 5 one-line patches". > smcv cu Adrian -- "Is there not promise of rain?" Ling Tan asked suddenly out of the darkness. There had been need of rain for many days. "Only a promise," Lao Er said. Pearl S. Buck - Dragon Seed
Bug#895247: libgnomecanvas: Intent to Adopt
On Thu, 12 Apr 2018 at 23:32:45 +0300, Adrian Bunk wrote: > On Thu, Apr 12, 2018 at 06:09:32PM +0100, Simon McVittie wrote: > > particularly if you plan to modify things that are annoying to do via > > a patch series, like the build system. > > I do not see any reason for changing something like the build system. Perhaps I was overestimating how much is needed to make it work with the current (i.e. 2015) gnome-common package. It seems to have been part of the mass-bug-filing for uses of deprecated or removed macros, but maybe it only used the deprecated macros and not the removed ones. > > Because these packages mention "gnome" in their names, it would be great > > if you could reduce confusion by modifying their Description to clarify > > that they are no longer considered to be part of (current) GNOME. > > Makes sense (similar to e.g. #887783). Yes, and more recently #895348. We haven't historically been very good at making packages that are no longer part of GNOME self-documenting (updating Description fields, moving deprecated libraries to oldlibs, etc.) because people tend to prioritize the (current) key packages, so I'm trying to catch up on several years of Description fixes and oldlibs overrides at the moment. smcv
Bug#895247: libgnomecanvas: Intent to Adopt
On Thu, Apr 12, 2018 at 06:09:32PM +0100, Simon McVittie wrote: > On Thu, 12 Apr 2018 at 15:03:11 +0200, Gert Wollny wrote: > > Hi Adrian, > > (Adrian won't have seen this unless he's subscribed to the bug or > package, because bug submitters don't normally get copies of bug mail > in the Debian BTS; adding him to Cc.) Thanks. > > as the maintainer of amide[1], a package that depends on libgnomecanvas > > I was also already thinking about adopting this package and libart- > > lgpl. In other words I'd happily join to co-maintain these two > > packages. I am not a huge fan of co-maintaining low-effort packages,[1] either you or me maintaining a package would be fine for me. > Do you (either or both of you) also intend to adopt the language bindings > src:libgnomecanvasmm2.6 (in theory currently maintained by Deng Xiyue, > most recent maintainer upload 2009)? Good point, I haven't yet looked at these. > Everything I said below "My concern about keeping packages like gconf" > in https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=895246#10 applies > equally here. If, having considered that, you still want to adopt these > libraries, I don't think anyone will stop you. Thanks. > Both libgnomecanvas and libgnomecanvasmm are listed as "archived" > in GNOME git, so they have no upstream maintainer. If you adopt them, > you will be the closest thing there is to their upstream maintainer; > it might be a good idea to start a new upstream project (forked from > the archived GNOME source code) that other distributions can share, > particularly if you plan to modify things that are annoying to do via > a patch series, like the build system. I do not see any reason for changing something like the build system. Looking at the currently applied patches and the BTS, libgnomecanvas in buster might apply up to 5 one-line patches to the upstream sources. > Because these packages mention "gnome" in their names, it would be great > if you could reduce confusion by modifying their Description to clarify > that they are no longer considered to be part of (current) GNOME. Makes sense (similar to e.g. #887783). >... > smcv cu Adrian [1] it often just makes it harder to discover that all people are MIA -- "Is there not promise of rain?" Ling Tan asked suddenly out of the darkness. There had been need of rain for many days. "Only a promise," Lao Er said. Pearl S. Buck - Dragon Seed
Bug#895247: libgnomecanvas: Intent to Adopt
On Thu, 12 Apr 2018 at 15:03:11 +0200, Gert Wollny wrote: > Hi Adrian, (Adrian won't have seen this unless he's subscribed to the bug or package, because bug submitters don't normally get copies of bug mail in the Debian BTS; adding him to Cc.) > as the maintainer of amide[1], a package that depends on libgnomecanvas > I was also already thinking about adopting this package and libart- > lgpl. In other words I'd happily join to co-maintain these two > packages. Do you (either or both of you) also intend to adopt the language bindings src:libgnomecanvasmm2.6 (in theory currently maintained by Deng Xiyue, most recent maintainer upload 2009)? Everything I said below "My concern about keeping packages like gconf" in https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=895246#10 applies equally here. If, having considered that, you still want to adopt these libraries, I don't think anyone will stop you. Both libgnomecanvas and libgnomecanvasmm are listed as "archived" in GNOME git, so they have no upstream maintainer. If you adopt them, you will be the closest thing there is to their upstream maintainer; it might be a good idea to start a new upstream project (forked from the archived GNOME source code) that other distributions can share, particularly if you plan to modify things that are annoying to do via a patch series, like the build system. Because these packages mention "gnome" in their names, it would be great if you could reduce confusion by modifying their Description to clarify that they are no longer considered to be part of (current) GNOME. libart-lgpl packaging has been successfully converted from svn to git and is available from https://salsa.debian.org/gnome-team/libart-lgpl (a gnome-team Owner or a Salsa sysadmin might be able to move that into a different namespace for you, leaving a redirect behind). libgnomecanvas and libgnomecanvasmm2.6 seem to have failed their automatic conversion from svn (there are repositories in /git/pkg-gnome on Alioth but they are empty); I think I still have the right incantations in my shell history on alioth to do a fallback conversion with git-svn, if that would be helpful to you. smcv
Bug#895247: libgnomecanvas: Intent to Adopt
Hi Adrian, as the maintainer of amide[1], a package that depends on libgnomecanvas I was also already thinking about adopting this package and libart- lgpl. In other words I'd happily join to co-maintain these two packages. Best, Gert [1]https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=893770
Bug#895247: libgnomecanvas: Intent to Adopt
Source: libgnomecanvas Version: 2.30.3-3 Severity: serious Tags: buster sid 17:37 < jbicha> how about this for a next step: someone who wants to maintain libgnomecanvas can file a severity: serious bug against Debian's libgnomecanvas with the title Intent to Adopt 17:37 < jbicha> we can discuss things more on that bug I hereby declare my intent to adopt libgnomecanvas, mostly triggered by #893770 (amide). This is about keeping software that is long dead upstream but has reverse dependencies longer on life support. The goal is that the package works in buster not worse than it did in stretch, it is clear that spending much effort on maintainance upstream or in Debian would be a waste of time.
