Re: Update on packaging corepack
On Tue, Mar 21 2023 at 09:06:41 PM +01:00:00 +01:00:00, Paul Gevers wrote: Hi Pirate, Thanks for reaching out. On 20-03-2023 16:44, Pirate Praveen wrote: I request bookworm-ignore tags for these bugs (as such there is no immediate breakage, just unmaintained upstreams for these packages). > yarnpkg: 980316,958686, 1002902, 980316 > node-har-validator: 1024575 > node-request: 956423 > node-request-capture-har: 1002901 As the packages in question are key packages, we can't easily remove them. Hence adding a bookworm-ignore tag doesn't really change the situation in bookworm in any way. Hence, the question is whether fixing it now and adding an exception is better or worse than letting the bug ship in bookworm. If I understand correctly, than the required change would mean a new complex package (corepack) which (again, if I understand correctly) is considered also by you as inappropriate at this time. If you confirm my understanding, I agree that those bugs can be marked bookworm-ignore (I already marked them as bookworm-can-defer, which is less strong and less official). We won't be able to complete corepack in a few weeks or months. So we have to ship bookworm with these bugs and get this fixed in time for trixie. Paul
Re: Update on packaging corepack
Hi Pirate, Thanks for reaching out. On 20-03-2023 16:44, Pirate Praveen wrote: I request bookworm-ignore tags for these bugs (as such there is no immediate breakage, just unmaintained upstreams for these packages). > yarnpkg: 980316,958686, 1002902, 980316 > node-har-validator: 1024575 > node-request: 956423 > node-request-capture-har: 1002901 As the packages in question are key packages, we can't easily remove them. Hence adding a bookworm-ignore tag doesn't really change the situation in bookworm in any way. Hence, the question is whether fixing it now and adding an exception is better or worse than letting the bug ship in bookworm. If I understand correctly, than the required change would mean a new complex package (corepack) which (again, if I understand correctly) is considered also by you as inappropriate at this time. If you confirm my understanding, I agree that those bugs can be marked bookworm-ignore (I already marked them as bookworm-can-defer, which is less strong and less official). Paul OpenPGP_signature Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Re: Update on packaging corepack
On Thu, 16 Mar 2023 10:23:53 +0100 Israel Galadima
wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Michael and I have done some packaging work for corepack.
> Of note, we have updated clipanion and packaged some dependencies of
> proxy-agent.
>
> Although, some of our work is awaiting uploads because of the freeze.
>
> Regards.
We tried to update yarnpkg as part of an outreachy project (in two
rounds), but we could not complete it in time for bookworm. As shared
by Israel, we made some good progress and we hope to be able to do it
in trixie. I request bookworm-ignore tags for these bugs (as such there
is no immediate breakage, just unmaintained upstreams for these
packages). Hopefully we can handle any security updates ourselves.
Additionally, even though yarnpkg itself is old, the presence of the
package makes it easy to obtain a newer yarnpkg. In gitlab, I already
use the packaged yarnpkg command to install a newer yarnpkg[1]. It is
also very common in nodejs world to use specific version of yarnpkg for
each project, these are typically installed in .yarn directory for each
project.
yarnpkg: 980316,958686, 1002902, 980316
node-har-validator: 1024575
node-request: 956423
node-request-capture-har: 1002901
[1]
https://salsa.debian.org/ruby-team/gitlab/-/blob/master/debian/rake-tasks.sh#L44
runuser -u ${gitlab_user} -- sh -c 'yarnpkg set version berry'
