Bug#886590: Please add python3-z3 package
On 9/25/19 9:52 AM, Sylvestre Ledru wrote: > > Le 24/09/2019 à 16:41, Roman Lebedev a écrit : >> On Tue, Sep 24, 2019 at 5:39 PM Fabian Wolff wrote: >>> >>> What are your thoughts on this? >> I personally would not see dumping libz3-cil and libz3-ocaml-dev as a >> problem. > > +1 > > Having base packages working and maintained is more important than two leaf > packages! > > Any programs or libs using these libs? No reverse dependencies according to apt-rdepends, and grepping through /var/lib/apt/lists/*Sources, I didn't find any reverse build dependencies, either. As I said, dropping the libz3-cil package has a higher priority, because that's what's preventing an update to a newer version of z3. If the OCaml bindings don't cause any trouble when I try to update the package, they may survive a little longer. Roman: Thanks for pointing out that the Python 2 bindings don't work! I am planning to include some autopkgtests, which are great for testing such basic package functionality (e. g. checking that one can import the Python package). This should hopefully prevent such problems in the future, or at least make them much easier to detect. I'll try to have a look at all this over the weekend. Best regards, Fabian
Bug#886590: Please add python3-z3 package
Le 24/09/2019 à 16:41, Roman Lebedev a écrit : On Tue, Sep 24, 2019 at 5:39 PM Fabian Wolff wrote: What are your thoughts on this? I personally would not see dumping libz3-cil and libz3-ocaml-dev as a problem. +1 Having base packages working and maintained is more important than two leaf packages! Any programs or libs using these libs? Cheers S
Bug#886590: Please add python3-z3 package
On 9/24/19 2:49 PM, Roman Lebedev wrote: > On Tue, Sep 24, 2019 at 3:32 PM Sylvestre Ledru wrote: >> >> Hello >> >> >> Le 24/09/2019 à 12:51, Roman Lebedev a écrit : >>> Bump. Any chance this could be prioritized? >>> Lack of python3-z3 package prevents me from porting >>> some other python2 software to python3. >> >> Thanks to the work of Fabian Wolff, we have a better version of z3. > I'm a little bit out of context here, of *z3* or of z3 packaging? > Also, link? The z3 *package* was several years behind upstream z3, so I put in some work to package a more recent version of z3 for Debian, which is what Sylvestre was referring to. >> I don't know if he is planning to work on this soon but if you write a patch >> i would be happy to sponsor it. I can work on it; in fact, there has been a new upstream release of z3 (4.8.6, current Debian is 4.8.4), which I'd also like to package. *However*, there is one big problem: In order to build the libz3-cil package (.NET bindings), z3 (starting from version 4.8.5) requires the 'dotnet' command: https://github.com/dotnet/cli/tree/master/src/dotnet This command isn't currently available in Debian, and I have no plans of packaging it, because I'm very inexperienced with Mono et al. (and packaging thereof). Rather, I'd like to take this as an opportunity to drop the libz3-cil (and maybe also libz3-ocaml-dev) package altogether. Those two packages cause _by far_ the highest maintenance effort, and I dare presume that they were the main reason why nobody has bothered to update the z3 package for so long. The question is: Wouldn't it be better to have more regular updates and better maintenance in general of the z3 package (I'd even consider co-maintaining it, given that Michael Tautschnig hasn't made an upload for this package in almost four years), at the cost of dropping those two little-used (according to Popcon) packages? Because I suppose that I'm not the only one not very knowledgeable about Mono and OCaml packaging, and this is a pretty large barrier to working on the z3 package (because nobody wants to break these two packages, so they decide not to touch z3 at all). But now, building the libz3-cil package is no longer possible unless somebody packages the dotnet command (in which case we could always reintroduce it), and as to the OCaml bindings, I have to admit that I'm not even sure whether they are currently functioning at all (I had to do some patching in the build system even just to get them to build). So, in conclusion: If I'm allowed to drop these two packages (but especially libz3-cil), I will have a look at packaging the newer upstream release, and, while doing so, I can also include a new python3-z3 package (and probably drop the Python 2 package, given that it's reaching its end-of-life soon). What are your thoughts on this? Best regards, Fabian
Bug#886590: Please add python3-z3 package
On Tue, Sep 24, 2019 at 5:39 PM Fabian Wolff wrote: > > On 9/24/19 2:49 PM, Roman Lebedev wrote: > > On Tue, Sep 24, 2019 at 3:32 PM Sylvestre Ledru > > wrote: > >> > >> Hello > >> > >> > >> Le 24/09/2019 à 12:51, Roman Lebedev a écrit : > >>> Bump. Any chance this could be prioritized? > >>> Lack of python3-z3 package prevents me from porting > >>> some other python2 software to python3. > >> > >> Thanks to the work of Fabian Wolff, we have a better version of z3. > > I'm a little bit out of context here, of *z3* or of z3 packaging? > > Also, link? > > The z3 *package* was several years behind upstream z3, so I put in some work > to package > a more recent version of z3 for Debian, which is what Sylvestre was referring > to. > > >> I don't know if he is planning to work on this soon but if you write a > >> patch > >> i would be happy to sponsor it. > > I can work on it; in fact, there has been a new upstream release of z3 > (4.8.6, current > Debian is 4.8.4), which I'd also like to package. > > *However*, there is one big problem: In order to build the libz3-cil package > (.NET > bindings), z3 (starting from version 4.8.5) requires the 'dotnet' command: > > https://github.com/dotnet/cli/tree/master/src/dotnet > > This command isn't currently available in Debian, and I have no plans of > packaging it, > because I'm very inexperienced with Mono et al. (and packaging thereof). > > > Rather, I'd like to take this as an opportunity to drop the libz3-cil (and > maybe also > libz3-ocaml-dev) package altogether. Those two packages cause _by far_ the > highest > maintenance effort, and I dare presume that they were the main reason why > nobody has > bothered to update the z3 package for so long. > > The question is: Wouldn't it be better to have more regular updates and better > maintenance in general of the z3 package (I'd even consider co-maintaining > it, given > that Michael Tautschnig hasn't made an upload for this package in almost four > years), > at the cost of dropping those two little-used (according to Popcon) packages? > > Because I suppose that I'm not the only one not very knowledgeable about Mono > and OCaml > packaging, and this is a pretty large barrier to working on the z3 package > (because > nobody wants to break these two packages, so they decide not to touch z3 at > all). > > > But now, building the libz3-cil package is no longer possible unless somebody > packages > the dotnet command (in which case we could always reintroduce it), and as to > the OCaml > bindings, I have to admit that I'm not even sure whether they are currently > functioning > at all (I had to do some patching in the build system even just to get them > to build). > > > So, in conclusion: If I'm allowed to drop these two packages (but especially > libz3-cil), > I will have a look at packaging the newer upstream release, and, while doing > so, I can > also include a new python3-z3 package (and probably drop the Python 2 > package, given > that it's reaching its end-of-life soon). > > What are your thoughts on this? I personally would not see dumping libz3-cil and libz3-ocaml-dev as a problem. > Best regards, > Fabian
Bug#886590: Please add python3-z3 package
On Tue, Sep 24, 2019 at 3:32 PM Sylvestre Ledru wrote: > > Hello > > > Le 24/09/2019 à 12:51, Roman Lebedev a écrit : > > Bump. Any chance this could be prioritized? > > Lack of python3-z3 package prevents me from porting > > some other python2 software to python3. > > Thanks to the work of Fabian Wolff, we have a better version of z3. I'm a little bit out of context here, of *z3* or of z3 packaging? Also, link? > I don't know if he is planning to work on this soon but if you write a patch > i would be happy to sponsor it. > > thanks > Sylvestre Roman
Bug#886590: Please add python3-z3 package
Hello Le 24/09/2019 à 12:51, Roman Lebedev a écrit : Bump. Any chance this could be prioritized? Lack of python3-z3 package prevents me from porting some other python2 software to python3. Thanks to the work of Fabian Wolff, we have a better version of z3. I don't know if he is planning to work on this soon but if you write a patch i would be happy to sponsor it. thanks Sylvestre
Bug#886590: Please add python3-z3 package
Bump. Any chance this could be prioritized? Lack of python3-z3 package prevents me from porting some other python2 software to python3. Roman.
Bug#886590: Please add python3-z3 package
Source: z3 Version: 4.4.1-0.3 Severity: wishlist It’d be nice to have a python3-z3 package in addition to python-z3, especially with Python 2 fast approaching end-of-life. Upstream states that the Z3 Python bindings work in Python 3 (https://github.com/Z3Prover/z3#python), and I can confirm this after copying the contents of python-z3 to a directory in Python 3’s sys.path. Anders
