Bug#738616: removing newer libasio-dev (v1.10) from unstable
On 02/12/2014 01:50 AM, Andreas Beckmann wrote: > Control: reassign -1 asio 1.10.1-1 > Control: close -1 1:1.4.8-3 > > On 2014-02-11 22:26, Daniel Pocock wrote: >> We should mark 738613 fixed in the new version I think > > Done. Just for the record: this is #738616. But it is okay to close as well. I already marked #738613 as closed by 1:1.4.8-3. Thanks Markus Wanner signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Bug#738616: removing newer libasio-dev (v1.10) from unstable
Control: reassign -1 asio 1.10.1-1 Control: close -1 1:1.4.8-3 On 2014-02-11 22:26, Daniel Pocock wrote: > We should mark 738613 fixed in the new version I think Done. Andreas -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-bugs-dist-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Bug#738616: removing newer libasio-dev (v1.10) from unstable
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA256 On 11/02/14 22:18, Markus Wanner wrote: > Daniel, > > On 02/11/2014 09:46 PM, Daniel Pocock wrote: >> Has anybody else tried something else to deal with this package >> transition or reversion to 1.4.8? Or did I do something wrong >> when adding the epoch? > > I think you did just fine, but PTS is lagging behind. See here: > http://metadata.ftp-master.debian.org/changelogs/main/a/asio/asio_1.4.8-3_changelog I > notice that everything seemed to fall into place shortly after sending that email - my reSIProcate packages are building now > Does this allow us to close this bug? And at least degrade #738613 > to non-serious? (Otherwise, your upload won't migrate to testing, > either, I guess.) > We should mark 738613 fixed in the new version I think > On 02/11/2014 01:40 PM, Julien Cristau wrote: >> Please try to avoid versioned -dev packages. Unless you really >> really have to keep both versions around for years. > > Rethinking that, I agree. For effectively two debian packages > (abiword and resiprocate, disregarding ball) that rely on > libasio-dev, it's hardly worth the effort of maintaining two > separate versions. > > The other point being that (this variant of) asio being a > headers-only library doesn't change the fact that any -dev package > is only used during a build, but not when running any program > (binary). In other words, just like any other -dev package, an > upgrade of it won't ever break a compiled binary. At the worst, it > leads to an FTBFS (as 1.10.1 does for both, BTW). > It is an awkward question - if the API change is mild and the new version is better in every way then killing of the old version (with enough time for a transition) is fair enough If there are any question marks over stability of the new version or if it is so much work that the packagers of resiprocate and abiword can't easily fix it, then the pain of keeping an old version libasio1.4-dev may be much less As a reSIProcate upstream, * We just released 1.9.0 with a dependency on asio 1.4.x * I'm happy to look at asio version for our 1.10.x release cycle. * only one part of reSIProcate uses asio, so I could also split the package upstream, reduce the scope for future conflicts like this -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.4.12 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Using GnuPG with Icedove - http://www.enigmail.net/ iQIcBAEBCAAGBQJS+pWGAAoJEOm1uwJp1aqDITYQALlGaQpOyNJw3Vz3JtXd+us/ JDUBV94PZqhZSC4KVZeNSMY6n1jQufHpvbkVapXJDO4GgiCp4yWU/NtEVjCP07sl 8+YjJcLep783kI2YVkjm1Fo+6JeVXdQfE827663/h58jEX1U9Lk7bEhdM26u7VdQ n4JyY2GFS8BXO9sLAxopoo8xcT6RWW0GnZlvcjO0GuF1tXrLVII3BJBCCvxmSUkA MWu7FL6fUFI/JgGejQbiOl60i7GtlzCHlwlp0o3uBSvU1s6rQMoR+0J0Dbw9c5Og qi2mdF2N9dXeVA86EErWTvyobPcjI0Wg3uQSizIsLoK9uD79CKPqcA23bGfqie7x 5dv9ZOcY8Hpxm2S3V5UPmZvyKTNI4A6AbG1N+X2HnlUVK5++NkMsMb5QRW3y6oQ9 YD03EvFQfyAjIC8A1T4n0poTpxUM3rl9uyCqziZsEWOzbgjJaLOvwhsqAO7JHx3y sRFpSWn1J24blji270PJx4w/b3ZBD0zbXj6lhZDCNW9R3uqoVvxKwB5LyPlQKvTe bZ/z3/ZNByTlytlsN+ZVim9V3q/7tDsKqBL5QIqHcl1D+4ez5Nw9IPnE1iGtakBm l4Wx4JkYxfRdSLEgtXVZCWsD6Pte2Ftsj8eGKm8EwkdXmWjp5hW7Xm9XDbXMgrTT YKZ2l9NBfFqAdh6Ve8r+ =lMdP -END PGP SIGNATURE- -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-bugs-dist-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Bug#738616: removing newer libasio-dev (v1.10) from unstable
Daniel, On 02/11/2014 09:46 PM, Daniel Pocock wrote: > Has anybody else tried something else to deal with this package > transition or reversion to 1.4.8? Or did I do something wrong when > adding the epoch? I think you did just fine, but PTS is lagging behind. See here: http://metadata.ftp-master.debian.org/changelogs/main/a/asio/asio_1.4.8-3_changelog Does this allow us to close this bug? And at least degrade #738613 to non-serious? (Otherwise, your upload won't migrate to testing, either, I guess.) On 02/11/2014 01:40 PM, Julien Cristau wrote: > Please try to avoid versioned -dev packages. Unless you really really > have to keep both versions around for years. Rethinking that, I agree. For effectively two debian packages (abiword and resiprocate, disregarding ball) that rely on libasio-dev, it's hardly worth the effort of maintaining two separate versions. The other point being that (this variant of) asio being a headers-only library doesn't change the fact that any -dev package is only used during a build, but not when running any program (binary). In other words, just like any other -dev package, an upgrade of it won't ever break a compiled binary. At the worst, it leads to an FTBFS (as 1.10.1 does for both, BTW). Granted, I should still have started a proper transition, rather than uploading (an API-incompatible) 1.10.1 without notice. Please accept my apologies, I should have known better. Regards Markus Wanner signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Bug#738616: removing newer libasio-dev (v1.10) from unstable
On 11/02/14 15:41, Daniel Pocock wrote: > On 11/02/14 15:26, Andreas Beckmann wrote: >> On 2014-02-11 13:10, Markus Wanner wrote: >>> On 02/11/2014 01:01 PM, Andreas Beckmann wrote: Or if you want to avoid using epochs, reupload 1.4.8 using as 1.10.really.1.4.8 as the upstream version, and upload 1.10 as 1.10.release to experimental. Once you upload upstream 1.11 you are back to normal version numbers without having used an epoch inbetween. >>> Given that we are likely to switch to separate libasio1.4-dev and >>> libasio1.10-dev packages, I think the epoch approach is less confusing, >>> overall. >> Since it seems you need to introduce libasio1.4-dev anyway, it should be >> possible to fix this version mess without .really. versions and without >> using epochs. All it needs is a trip through NEW. >> >> Let me know if I should look into preparing a patch ... >> >> > > > I already made an upload using epoch > > It is 1:1.4.8-3 > > I notice the upload hasn't actually built http://packages.qa.debian.org/a/asio.html reports that it is still 1.10.1-1 in unstable and no link to the build logs Has anybody else tried something else to deal with this package transition or reversion to 1.4.8? Or did I do something wrong when adding the epoch? -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-bugs-dist-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Bug#738616: removing newer libasio-dev (v1.10) from unstable
On 11/02/14 15:26, Andreas Beckmann wrote: > On 2014-02-11 13:10, Markus Wanner wrote: >> On 02/11/2014 01:01 PM, Andreas Beckmann wrote: >>> Or if you want to avoid using epochs, reupload 1.4.8 using as >>> 1.10.really.1.4.8 as the upstream version, and upload 1.10 as 1.10.release >>> to >>> experimental. Once you upload upstream 1.11 you are back to normal version >>> numbers without having used an epoch inbetween. >> Given that we are likely to switch to separate libasio1.4-dev and >> libasio1.10-dev packages, I think the epoch approach is less confusing, >> overall. > Since it seems you need to introduce libasio1.4-dev anyway, it should be > possible to fix this version mess without .really. versions and without > using epochs. All it needs is a trip through NEW. > > Let me know if I should look into preparing a patch ... > > I already made an upload using epoch It is 1:1.4.8-3 -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-bugs-dist-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Bug#738616: removing newer libasio-dev (v1.10) from unstable
On 2014-02-11 13:10, Markus Wanner wrote: > On 02/11/2014 01:01 PM, Andreas Beckmann wrote: >> Or if you want to avoid using epochs, reupload 1.4.8 using as >> 1.10.really.1.4.8 as the upstream version, and upload 1.10 as 1.10.release >> to >> experimental. Once you upload upstream 1.11 you are back to normal version >> numbers without having used an epoch inbetween. > > Given that we are likely to switch to separate libasio1.4-dev and > libasio1.10-dev packages, I think the epoch approach is less confusing, > overall. Since it seems you need to introduce libasio1.4-dev anyway, it should be possible to fix this version mess without .really. versions and without using epochs. All it needs is a trip through NEW. Let me know if I should look into preparing a patch ... Andreas -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-bugs-dist-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Bug#738616: removing newer libasio-dev (v1.10) from unstable
On 11/02/14 14:03, Julien Cristau wrote: > On Tue, Feb 11, 2014 at 13:58:17 +0100, Daniel Pocock wrote: > >> On 11/02/14 13:44, Markus Wanner wrote: >>> On 02/11/2014 01:40 PM, Julien Cristau wrote: Please try to avoid versioned -dev packages. Unless you really really have to keep both versions around for years. >>> Why is that? Keep in mind this is a headers-only library, i.e. it only >>> ever ships with a -dev (and a -doc) package. There's no other way >>> multiple versions of this library can be installed on a system. >>> >> Julien, Fedora and EPEL6 still have 1.4.8 as well. We don't know how >> widely it is used in things that are not packaged (e.g. in private code >> that people run on Debian) >> > That's irrelevant, as far as I'm concerned. Not exactly - upstreams may be less likely to adapt their code for v1.10 and that means we end up having to make more local patches or leaving things out of Debian However, I'll check with the Fedora maintainer for asio-devel, maybe Fedora 21 can carry v1.10 > >> If we release a versions libasio1.4-dev package and libasio1.10-dev >> concurrently in jessie it will mean people can transition more slowly >> but nothing will really break >> > And if you don't they can still use the old version, either through the > old package or through an unpackaged local version. Shipping libraries > in Debian only makes sense if Debian packages use them, IMO. At the moment, there are 3 proper packages using the old version of libasio-dev and none of the upstreams have shown enthusiasm for the new version My feeling is that abiword and reSIProcate will continue using libasio1.4-dev in jessie while any new project will hopefully start with libasio-dev 1.10 -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-bugs-dist-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Bug#738616: removing newer libasio-dev (v1.10) from unstable
On Tue, Feb 11, 2014 at 13:58:17 +0100, Daniel Pocock wrote: > On 11/02/14 13:44, Markus Wanner wrote: > > On 02/11/2014 01:40 PM, Julien Cristau wrote: > >> Please try to avoid versioned -dev packages. Unless you really really > >> have to keep both versions around for years. > > Why is that? Keep in mind this is a headers-only library, i.e. it only > > ever ships with a -dev (and a -doc) package. There's no other way > > multiple versions of this library can be installed on a system. > > > > Julien, Fedora and EPEL6 still have 1.4.8 as well. We don't know how > widely it is used in things that are not packaged (e.g. in private code > that people run on Debian) > That's irrelevant, as far as I'm concerned. > If we release a versions libasio1.4-dev package and libasio1.10-dev > concurrently in jessie it will mean people can transition more slowly > but nothing will really break > And if you don't they can still use the old version, either through the old package or through an unpackaged local version. Shipping libraries in Debian only makes sense if Debian packages use them, IMO. Cheers, Julien signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Bug#738616: removing newer libasio-dev (v1.10) from unstable
On 11/02/14 13:44, Markus Wanner wrote: > On 02/11/2014 01:40 PM, Julien Cristau wrote: >> Please try to avoid versioned -dev packages. Unless you really really >> have to keep both versions around for years. > Why is that? Keep in mind this is a headers-only library, i.e. it only > ever ships with a -dev (and a -doc) package. There's no other way > multiple versions of this library can be installed on a system. > Julien, Fedora and EPEL6 still have 1.4.8 as well. We don't know how widely it is used in things that are not packaged (e.g. in private code that people run on Debian) If we release a versions libasio1.4-dev package and libasio1.10-dev concurrently in jessie it will mean people can transition more slowly but nothing will really break -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-bugs-dist-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Bug#738616: removing newer libasio-dev (v1.10) from unstable
On 02/11/2014 01:40 PM, Julien Cristau wrote: > Please try to avoid versioned -dev packages. Unless you really really > have to keep both versions around for years. Why is that? Keep in mind this is a headers-only library, i.e. it only ever ships with a -dev (and a -doc) package. There's no other way multiple versions of this library can be installed on a system. Regards Markus Wanner signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Bug#738616: removing newer libasio-dev (v1.10) from unstable
On Tue, Feb 11, 2014 at 13:10:55 +0100, Markus Wanner wrote: > On 02/11/2014 01:01 PM, Andreas Beckmann wrote: > > Or if you want to avoid using epochs, reupload 1.4.8 using as > > 1.10.really.1.4.8 as the upstream version, and upload 1.10 as 1.10.release > > to > > experimental. Once you upload upstream 1.11 you are back to normal version > > numbers without having used an epoch inbetween. > > Given that we are likely to switch to separate libasio1.4-dev and > libasio1.10-dev packages, I think the epoch approach is less confusing, > overall. > Please try to avoid versioned -dev packages. Unless you really really have to keep both versions around for years. Cheers, Julien signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Bug#738616: removing newer libasio-dev (v1.10) from unstable
Hi Daniel, On Tue, Feb 11, 2014 at 12:09:46PM +0100, Daniel Pocock wrote: > > Looks like the following three packages are impacted by this build > dependency: > > src:abiword > src:ball > src:resiprocate > > All those packages need patching to work with the new version of asio > due to API changes I admit we have serious trouble wis ball. Despite we worked heavily on the build system to get it at least 99% build and sended patches upstream we did not got any response so far. While a patch is welcome thought we have no idea whether we can keep ball inside Debian. > Does the release team have any preference for making this a formal > transition or we should just work it out informally between the > maintainers of these packages? > > Markus, please have a brief look at > https://wiki.debian.org/Teams/ReleaseTeam/Transitions Since ball never hit testing it is probably not relevant for this problem. Kind regards Andreas. -- http://fam-tille.de -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-bugs-dist-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Bug#738616: removing newer libasio-dev (v1.10) from unstable
On 02/11/2014 01:01 PM, Andreas Beckmann wrote: > Or if you want to avoid using epochs, reupload 1.4.8 using as > 1.10.really.1.4.8 as the upstream version, and upload 1.10 as 1.10.release to > experimental. Once you upload upstream 1.11 you are back to normal version > numbers without having used an epoch inbetween. Given that we are likely to switch to separate libasio1.4-dev and libasio1.10-dev packages, I think the epoch approach is less confusing, overall. > You should probably prepare these API adjustments in experimental and request > a regular transition once the packages are all fixed. Agreed. Let's do a regular transition. Regards Markus signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Bug#738616: removing newer libasio-dev (v1.10) from unstable
On Tuesday, 11. February 2014 11:49:22 Julien Cristau wrote: > No, we can't do that. And you shouldn't do that. What you can do is > use an epoch to make the version number go backwards. Or if you want to avoid using epochs, reupload 1.4.8 using as 1.10.really.1.4.8 as the upstream version, and upload 1.10 as 1.10.release to experimental. Once you upload upstream 1.11 you are back to normal version numbers without having used an epoch inbetween. On Tuesday, 11. February 2014 12:09:46 Daniel Pocock wrote: > All those packages need patching to work with the new version of asio > due to API changes > > Does the release team have any preference for making this a formal > transition or we should just work it out informally between the > maintainers of these packages? You should probably prepare these API adjustments in experimental and request a regular transition once the packages are all fixed. Andreas -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-bugs-dist-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Bug#738616: removing newer libasio-dev (v1.10) from unstable
On 11/02/14 11:49, Julien Cristau wrote: > On Tue, Feb 11, 2014 at 10:44:30 +0100, Daniel Pocock wrote: > >> Package: release.debian.org >> >> We would like the version of libasio-dev in unstable to revert to the >> version currently in testing (1.4.8-2) >> > You might want to explain why. API changes make it incompatible Fedora and EPEL still carry 1.4.8 which is widely used by dependencies such as those mentioned below > >> Can you please remove the v1.10.1-1 libasio-dev from unstable or let me >> know what action to take, e.g. should I upload a 1.4.8-3 package? >> > No, we can't do that. And you shouldn't do that. What you can do is > use an epoch to make the version number go backwards. Ok, I will do that and upload later today >> Also, could you please comment on whether we should plan a transition >> for asio 1.10 to enter jessie? Markus is maintaining the package, >> reSIProcate is the only build dependency we know of and if there are no >> others then a formal transition probably isn't required. >> >> Is there an equivalent of "apt-cache rdepends" that can help us locate >> any other packages with a build dependency on libasio-dev? As it is a >> header library, no packages declare a runtime dependency on it. >> > wget -qO- http://ftp.debian.org/debian/dists/sid/main/source/Sources.gz | > zcat | grep-dctrl -FBuild-Depends -sPackage libasio-dev > > Adjusting for contrib and non-free left as an exercise for the reader. Thanks for that feedback Looks like the following three packages are impacted by this build dependency: src:abiword src:ball src:resiprocate All those packages need patching to work with the new version of asio due to API changes Does the release team have any preference for making this a formal transition or we should just work it out informally between the maintainers of these packages? Markus, please have a brief look at https://wiki.debian.org/Teams/ReleaseTeam/Transitions -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-bugs-dist-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Bug#738616: removing newer libasio-dev (v1.10) from unstable
On Tue, Feb 11, 2014 at 10:44:30 +0100, Daniel Pocock wrote: > Package: release.debian.org > > We would like the version of libasio-dev in unstable to revert to the > version currently in testing (1.4.8-2) > You might want to explain why. > Can you please remove the v1.10.1-1 libasio-dev from unstable or let me > know what action to take, e.g. should I upload a 1.4.8-3 package? > No, we can't do that. And you shouldn't do that. What you can do is use an epoch to make the version number go backwards. > Also, could you please comment on whether we should plan a transition > for asio 1.10 to enter jessie? Markus is maintaining the package, > reSIProcate is the only build dependency we know of and if there are no > others then a formal transition probably isn't required. > > Is there an equivalent of "apt-cache rdepends" that can help us locate > any other packages with a build dependency on libasio-dev? As it is a > header library, no packages declare a runtime dependency on it. > wget -qO- http://ftp.debian.org/debian/dists/sid/main/source/Sources.gz | zcat | grep-dctrl -FBuild-Depends -sPackage libasio-dev Adjusting for contrib and non-free left as an exercise for the reader. Cheers, Julien signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Bug#738616: removing newer libasio-dev (v1.10) from unstable
Package: release.debian.org We would like the version of libasio-dev in unstable to revert to the version currently in testing (1.4.8-2) Can you please remove the v1.10.1-1 libasio-dev from unstable or let me know what action to take, e.g. should I upload a 1.4.8-3 package? Also, could you please comment on whether we should plan a transition for asio 1.10 to enter jessie? Markus is maintaining the package, reSIProcate is the only build dependency we know of and if there are no others then a formal transition probably isn't required. Is there an equivalent of "apt-cache rdepends" that can help us locate any other packages with a build dependency on libasio-dev? As it is a header library, no packages declare a runtime dependency on it. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-bugs-dist-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
