Bug#1053718: python3-xarray: xarray reports version 999 because the importlib.metadata is using the fallback version

[Mark Harfouche]

Package: python3-xarray
Version: 2023.08.0-1ubuntu5
Severity: normal
X-Debbugs-Cc: mark.harfou...@gmail.com

Dear Maintainer,

   * What led up to the situation?
 apt install python3-xarray (on ubuntu 23.10). Then

 python3 -c "import xarray; assert(xarray.__version__.startswith('201')"

   * What exactly did you do (or not do) that was effective (or
 ineffective)?

 python3 -c "from importlib.metadata import version as _version; 
print(_version('xarray'))"

   * What was the outcome of this action?

 wrong version reported. In fact, the fallback version in the
 setup.py is reported.

   * What outcome did you expect instead?

 The version of xarray to be correctly reported.


I feel like a build tool is missing since conda-forge doesn't do much
special during the build phase.

We do have `setuptoos-scm` installed.

https://github.com/conda-forge/xarray-feedstock/blob/main/recipe/meta.yaml#L21


-- System Information:
Debian Release: trixie/sid
  APT prefers mantic
  APT policy: (500, 'mantic')
Architecture: amd64 (x86_64)
Foreign Architectures: i386

Kernel: Linux 6.5.1-060501-generic (SMP w/8 CPU threads; PREEMPT)
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 python3-xarray depends on:
ii  python33.11.4-5
ii  python3-jinja2 3.1.2-1
ii  python3-numpy  1:1.24.2-1
ii  python3-packaging  23.1-1
ii  python3-pandas 1.5.3+dfsg-6

Versions of packages python3-xarray recommends:
ii  python3-bottleneck  1.3.5+ds1-2build1
ii  python3-cftime  1.6.2-3build1
ii  python3-dask2023.8.0+dfsg-2
ii  python3-h5netcdf1.2.0-1
ii  python3-netcdf4 1.6.4-1
ii  python3-rasterio1.3.8-1
ii  python3-sparse  0.13.0-1
ii  python3-zarr2.16.0+ds-1

Versions of packages python3-xarray suggests:
pn  python-xarray-doc   
pn  python3-cartopy 
ii  python3-matplotlib  3.6.3-1ubuntu2
pn  python3-pydap   
ii  python3-scipy   1.10.1-2
pn  python3-seaborn 
ii  python3-toolz   0.12.0-1

-- no debconf information

Bug#1053716: python3-json-tricks: Please update to the latest version (3.17.3) the latest version is more than 5 years old

[Mark Harfouche]

Package: python3-json-tricks
Version: 3.11.0-4
Severity: normal
X-Debbugs-Cc: mark.harfou...@gmail.com

Dear Maintainer,

   * What led up to the situation? I was trying to use ubuntu provided
   * packages to test my application using the GDB debugger.
   * What exactly did you do (or not do) that was effective (or
 ineffective)?
 Tried to install json-tricks from apt, they follow your packages.
   * What was the outcome of this action?
 I had to write compatibility code between json-tricks 3.17 and
 3.11
   * What outcome did you expect instead?
 I wanted a modern version of json-tricks to be installed.

I am happy to make a merge request directly to

https://salsa.debian.org/python-team/packages/json-tricks

but I don't know if you prefer to rebase or merge when updating your
source.

Thanks!

Mark

-- System Information:
Debian Release: trixie/sid
  APT prefers mantic
  APT policy: (500, 'mantic')
Architecture: amd64 (x86_64)
Foreign Architectures: i386

Kernel: Linux 6.5.1-060501-generic (SMP w/8 CPU threads; PREEMPT)
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 python3-json-tricks depends on:
ii  python3  3.11.4-5

python3-json-tricks recommends no packages.

python3-json-tricks suggests no packages.

-- no debconf information

Bug#993787: totem: split out thumbnailer in it's own package

[Mark Harfouche]

Hi All,

I would like to request for this to be the case for a few reasons:

1. It seems that the "thumnailing" functionality is tied to the video
player. This is somewhat problematic since I've had alot of hard time
getting the thumnailer to work, while the video player works wonders. But
since many colleagues of mine want thumbnailing to work, the only resort I
have is to ask them to remove the `totem-common` package altogether, thus
removing totem.

2. It seems that there are many unresolved bugs in ubuntu (and debian)
regarding thumbnailing with totem. It would be good if users had a choice
between different thumbnailers for video, and different video players.
totem-thumbnailer vs ffmpegthumbnailer, totem vs vlc come to mind. Today, I
cannot use totem + ffmpegthumbnailer.

I've asked ubuntu to split the package, but they referred me back to you.

https://answers.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/totem/+question/704576

xref: Growing lists of segfaults dating back a long time in ubuntu:
https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu?field.has_patch==Search==totem-video-thumbnailer_reporter=_dupes=on=NEW=INCOMPLETE_WITH_RESPONSE=INCOMPLETE_WITHOUT_RESPONSE=CONFIRMED=TRIAGED=INPROGRESS=FIXCOMMITTED_no_package=

Thank you for your consideration.

Best,

Mark


On Mon, 06 Sep 2021 16:19:05 +0200 Christoph Anton Mitterer <
cales...@scientia.net> wrote:
> Package: totem
> Version: 3.38.1-2
> Severity: wishlist
>
>
> Hi.
>
> 1)
> totem and totem-common contains a lot of stuff,... totem itself, images,
translations
> and also the totem-video-thumbnailer (in totem) and it's related files
(in totem-common).
>
> Would you possibly consider to split that out into a separate package?
> It's used by several others for displaying purposes (I guess at least
nautilus and nemo)
> and thus makes sense to have it installed separtely for people who don't
use totem
> itself.
>
>
> 2)
> What might be even better is what I've been writing about in the end of
> https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=+973942#35
>
> Since there are numerous thumbnailers, I guess at least those:
> $ apt-file search /usr/share/thumbnailers/
> atril-common: /usr/share/thumbnailers/atril.thumbnailer
> blender-data: /usr/share/thumbnailers/blender.thumbnailer
> dia-common: /usr/share/thumbnailers/dia.thumbnailer
> evince: /usr/share/thumbnailers/evince.thumbnailer
> ffmpegthumbnailer: /usr/share/thumbnailers/ffmpegthumbnailer.thumbnailer
> geogebra-gnome: /usr/share/thumbnailers/geogebra.thumbnailer
> gnome-font-viewer: /usr/share/thumbnailers/gnome-font-viewer.thumbnailer
> gnome-hwp-support: /usr/share/thumbnailers/hwp-thumbnailer.thumbnailer
> gnome-nds-thumbnailer:
/usr/share/thumbnailers/gnome-nds-thumbnailer.thumbnailer
> gwyddion-common: /usr/share/thumbnailers/gwyddion.thumbnailer
> heif-thumbnailer: /usr/share/thumbnailers/heif.thumbnailer
> icoextract-thumbnailer:
/usr/share/thumbnailers/exe-thumbnailer.thumbnailer
> libgdk-pixbuf2.0-bin:
/usr/share/thumbnailers/gdk-pixbuf-thumbnailer.thumbnailer
> libgsf-bin: /usr/share/thumbnailers/gsf-office.thumbnailer
> librsvg2-common: /usr/share/thumbnailers/librsvg.thumbnailer
> mate-control-center-common:
/usr/share/thumbnailers/mate-font-viewer.thumbnailer
> mcomix: /usr/share/thumbnailers/comicthumb.thumbnailer
> mypaint: /usr/share/thumbnailers/mypaint-ora.thumbnailer
> ooo-thumbnailer: /usr/share/thumbnailers/ooo.thumbnailer
> pentobi: /usr/share/thumbnailers/pentobi.thumbnailer
> qrenderdoc: /usr/share/thumbnailers/renderdoc.thumbnailer
> tiled: /usr/share/thumbnailers/tiled.thumbnailer
> totem-common: /usr/share/thumbnailers/totem.thumbnailer
>
>
> it would be nice if there was a virtual package or so, that all of these
could
> provide and that packages (like nautilus) would then depend on,... maybe
with
> some preference e.g.
> Depends: totem-thumbnailer | freedesktop-thumbnailer
>
> So people would get the standard pics/videos thumbnailer (i.e.
totem-thumbnailer)
> but could also easily find thumbnailers for more "exotic" formats like
blender.
>
>
> Obviously this would affect much more than just totem, and I have no real
idea where
> to repot a wishlist ticket for that.
>