Bug#936924: Moving libsvm to Debian Science team
Hi Christian, On Sun, Jan 12, 2020 at 11:42:58AM +0100, Christian Kastner wrote: > Pushing worked after this, thanks. :-) > I test-rebuilt all packages with build dependencies on libsvm packages, > and most of them built successfully. Here are the issues I encountered: > > * src:pymvpa2 > Can't be built because of removed Python 2 dependencies, and without > a Python3 package will itself be removed eventually, I guess > > * src:openms > FTBFS, but for unrelated reasons (#943450, issue with new doxygen) > > * src:python-sklearn > FTBFS because of 3 test suite errors, but also does so with > libsvm-3.21+ds-1.2, with the exact same errors. The errors do not > seem to be related to libsvm, eg [1]. > I'm working on an updated version of python-sklearn, so I'll look > into that separately. > > [1] https://github.com/scikit-learn/scikit-learn/pull/12890 It would be great if you could look into sklearn! > As the three issues above are not directly related to the new version of > libsvm, I saw no reason to stall any longer, so I went ahead and tagged > and uploaded 3.24+ds-1. Thanks a lot! > Thanks, all, for the collaboration! No need to thanks - it was simply needed for some rdepends. Kind regards Andreas. -- http://fam-tille.de
Bug#936924: Moving libsvm to Debian Science team
On 11.01.20 06:09, Andreas Tille wrote: > On Fri, Jan 10, 2020 at 11:45:15PM +0100, Christian Kastner wrote:> Strange. > I did not intentionally set the branch protection. Hope it > works now. Pushing worked after this, thanks. I test-rebuilt all packages with build dependencies on libsvm packages, and most of them built successfully. Here are the issues I encountered: * src:pymvpa2 Can't be built because of removed Python 2 dependencies, and without a Python3 package will itself be removed eventually, I guess * src:openms FTBFS, but for unrelated reasons (#943450, issue with new doxygen) * src:python-sklearn FTBFS because of 3 test suite errors, but also does so with libsvm-3.21+ds-1.2, with the exact same errors. The errors do not seem to be related to libsvm, eg [1]. I'm working on an updated version of python-sklearn, so I'll look into that separately. [1] https://github.com/scikit-learn/scikit-learn/pull/12890 As the three issues above are not directly related to the new version of libsvm, I saw no reason to stall any longer, so I went ahead and tagged and uploaded 3.24+ds-1. Thanks, all, for the collaboration!
Bug#936924: Moving libsvm to Debian Science team
On Fri, Jan 10, 2020 at 11:45:15PM +0100, Christian Kastner wrote: > > @Andreas: I can't push my changes to master, I get a protected branch > error. Could you please grant me the necessary privileges? Strange. I did not intentionally set the branch protection. Hope it works now. > There's a lintian info about a missing JAR, but I suspect that has more > to do with the symlink from libsvm-java pointing to libsvm3-java. > > I added a simple autopkgtest and it passed. Seeing as the symbols didn't > change a bit, I can see no reason why this couldn't be uploaded as-is, > but I'm tired and I'd like to check it again tomorrow with a fresh pair > of eyes, lest we break something. Thanks for your detailed work on this. Kind regards Andreas. -- http://fam-tille.de
Bug#936924: Moving libsvm to Debian Science team
Hi all, On 10.01.20 15:33, Chen-Tse Tsai wrote: > Yes, my changes are merged. I checked the package and everything looks pretty good. I just added some minor polishing of my own. Very surprisingly, not a single symbol has changed since 3.21 -- no additions, no removals, no changes. It looks as we will be spared a transition! @Andreas: I can't push my changes to master, I get a protected branch error. Could you please grant me the necessary privileges? > I won't be able to work on it in the next few days. Thanks for your > help! If you want, it would be great to add you as an Uploader since you > know these packages really well. Done! There's a lintian info about a missing JAR, but I suspect that has more to do with the symlink from libsvm-java pointing to libsvm3-java. I added a simple autopkgtest and it passed. Seeing as the symbols didn't change a bit, I can see no reason why this couldn't be uploaded as-is, but I'm tired and I'd like to check it again tomorrow with a fresh pair of eyes, lest we break something. Christian
Bug#936924: Moving libsvm to Debian Science team
Hi Christian, Yes, my changes are merged. I won't be able to work on it in the next few days. Thanks for your help! If you want, it would be great to add you as an Uploader since you know these packages really well. Thanks, Chen-Tse On Fri, Jan 10, 2020 at 8:14 AM Christian Kastner wrote: > On 10.01.20 11:07, Andreas Tille wrote: > > since my upload was a bit questionable this gives us the chance > > to discuss it again. What option would you prefer: > > > >1. I just re-upload what is in Git right now to new queue > >2. Somebody who feels more competent takes over > >3. Something else > > I dropped the ball on this when I got back from the holidays, but I can > look into it now. > > Chen-Tse, is your work already in the git repo on Salsa? >
Bug#936924: Moving libsvm to Debian Science team
On 10.01.20 11:07, Andreas Tille wrote: > since my upload was a bit questionable this gives us the chance > to discuss it again. What option would you prefer: > >1. I just re-upload what is in Git right now to new queue >2. Somebody who feels more competent takes over >3. Something else I dropped the ball on this when I got back from the holidays, but I can look into it now. Chen-Tse, is your work already in the git repo on Salsa?
Bug#936924: Moving libsvm to Debian Science team
Hi folks, I somehow missed https://alioth-lists.debian.net/pipermail/debian-science-maintainers/2019-December/076981.html since my upload was a bit questionable this gives us the chance to discuss it again. What option would you prefer: 1. I just re-upload what is in Git right now to new queue 2. Somebody who feels more competent takes over 3. Something else In any case I consider the situation urgent to react in the next couple of days to fix bug #936924 (which affects several other packages). Any opinions? Kind regards Andreas. -- http://fam-tille.de
Bug#936924: Moving libsvm to Debian Science team
Hi, On Wed, Dec 25, 2019 at 06:26:49PM +0100, Christian Kastner wrote: > > If you like gbp, then it's already a team win :-) +1 > Yeah, the C++ symbols generated are the mangled versions. You need to > unmangle them by piping the generated file through c++filt, and then add > the (c++) prefix to tell dpkg-gensymbols about this. The > UsingSymbolsFiles [1] page has a practical example on the bottom. > > The c++filt(1) and dpkg-gensymbols(1) man pages have theoretical > background on this, but TBH, I don't think it's needed. As I tried to express: I do not agree that the effort to maintain a symbols file is really needed. I just do so if upstream randomly changes ABI. Than dh_makeshlibs fails in the packaging step which is a flag that we need to bump SOVERSION. If you have other means to spot the need of a SOVERSION bump that's fine. > There are voices that say that symbols files for C++ libraries are > overly hard to maintain, but in case of this specific upstream, I didn't > have a negative experience, and it did help me detect breaking changes a > few times. Yes, exactly that's the point. BTW, sometimes it helps to just have a *.symbols.amd64 file which is sufficient to detect these changes while there is no need to fiddle with other architectures which in some cases might have different symbols and need extra care. Kind regards and thanks for caring for these packages Andreas. > [1] https://wiki.debian.org/UsingSymbolsFiles > -- http://fam-tille.de
Bug#936924: Moving libsvm to Debian Science team
Got it. Thanks! I missed the c++filt part. Chen-Tse On Wed, Dec 25, 2019 at 12:27 PM Christian Kastner wrote: > On 2019-12-25 18:08, Chen-Tse Tsai wrote: > > Thanks Andreas and Christian for the updates/comments. I agree that I > > should have been more verbose in the changelog. I'm tracing all the > > commits to learn more about packaging. I was playing with gbp for > > updating upstream. I really like how it works with git! No worries, my > > time was not wasted anyway. > > If you like gbp, then it's already a team win :-) > > > > > I talked to Christian briefly about the symbol file. He added one for > > liblinear4. I have a question about this file. The symbol file I > > generated looks a bit different from liblinear4.symbols, in which > > several lines start with (c++) and contain the exact parameters. I > > couldn't figure out how to make dpkg-gensymbols produce this. > > Yeah, the C++ symbols generated are the mangled versions. You need to > unmangle them by piping the generated file through c++filt, and then add > the (c++) prefix to tell dpkg-gensymbols about this. The > UsingSymbolsFiles [1] page has a practical example on the bottom. > > The c++filt(1) and dpkg-gensymbols(1) man pages have theoretical > background on this, but TBH, I don't think it's needed. > > There are voices that say that symbols files for C++ libraries are > overly hard to maintain, but in case of this specific upstream, I didn't > have a negative experience, and it did help me detect breaking changes a > few times. > > [1] https://wiki.debian.org/UsingSymbolsFiles >
Bug#936924: Moving libsvm to Debian Science team
On 2019-12-25 18:08, Chen-Tse Tsai wrote: > Thanks Andreas and Christian for the updates/comments. I agree that I > should have been more verbose in the changelog. I'm tracing all the > commits to learn more about packaging. I was playing with gbp for > updating upstream. I really like how it works with git! No worries, my > time was not wasted anyway. If you like gbp, then it's already a team win :-) > > I talked to Christian briefly about the symbol file. He added one for > liblinear4. I have a question about this file. The symbol file I > generated looks a bit different from liblinear4.symbols, in which > several lines start with (c++) and contain the exact parameters. I > couldn't figure out how to make dpkg-gensymbols produce this. Yeah, the C++ symbols generated are the mangled versions. You need to unmangle them by piping the generated file through c++filt, and then add the (c++) prefix to tell dpkg-gensymbols about this. The UsingSymbolsFiles [1] page has a practical example on the bottom. The c++filt(1) and dpkg-gensymbols(1) man pages have theoretical background on this, but TBH, I don't think it's needed. There are voices that say that symbols files for C++ libraries are overly hard to maintain, but in case of this specific upstream, I didn't have a negative experience, and it did help me detect breaking changes a few times. [1] https://wiki.debian.org/UsingSymbolsFiles
Bug#936924: Moving libsvm to Debian Science team
Thanks Andreas and Christian for the updates/comments. I agree that I should have been more verbose in the changelog. I'm tracing all the commits to learn more about packaging. I was playing with gbp for updating upstream. I really like how it works with git! No worries, my time was not wasted anyway. I talked to Christian briefly about the symbol file. He added one for liblinear4. I have a question about this file. The symbol file I generated looks a bit different from liblinear4.symbols, in which several lines start with (c++) and contain the exact parameters. I couldn't figure out how to make dpkg-gensymbols produce this. Thanks, Chen-Tse On Wed, Dec 25, 2019 at 10:02 AM Andreas Tille wrote: > On Wed, Dec 25, 2019 at 03:04:47PM +0100, Christian Kastner wrote: > > On 2019-12-25 10:59, Andreas Tille wrote: > > > Kind regards > > > > > >Andreas. > > > > I've re-read my original message and feel that I was overly harsh. I was > > irritated about the rushed upgrade as in private communication with > > Chen-Tse, I highlighted precisely the possible complexity of this > > upgrade and how it should be performed properly -- but, that was private > > communication. > > I admit I did not considered it overly harsh. My upload was in fact not > the best idea and your response just reflected it. > > > Apologies. > > Thanks but from my point of view not needed. Everything is fine at my > side and as I said I'll now leave the issue to you who are more > comfortable with that package. Something that came to my mind later: > When upstream does not mark SOVERSIONs: In this case I usually add a > symbols file. Thats more maintenance burden but usually helps to spot > issues with ABI changes. > > Kind regards > >Andreas. > > > -- > http://fam-tille.de >
Bug#936924: Moving libsvm to Debian Science team
On Wed, Dec 25, 2019 at 03:04:47PM +0100, Christian Kastner wrote: > On 2019-12-25 10:59, Andreas Tille wrote: > > Kind regards > > > >Andreas. > > I've re-read my original message and feel that I was overly harsh. I was > irritated about the rushed upgrade as in private communication with > Chen-Tse, I highlighted precisely the possible complexity of this > upgrade and how it should be performed properly -- but, that was private > communication. I admit I did not considered it overly harsh. My upload was in fact not the best idea and your response just reflected it. > Apologies. Thanks but from my point of view not needed. Everything is fine at my side and as I said I'll now leave the issue to you who are more comfortable with that package. Something that came to my mind later: When upstream does not mark SOVERSIONs: In this case I usually add a symbols file. Thats more maintenance burden but usually helps to spot issues with ABI changes. Kind regards Andreas. -- http://fam-tille.de
Bug#936924: Moving libsvm to Debian Science team
On 2019-12-25 10:59, Andreas Tille wrote: > Kind regards > >Andreas. I've re-read my original message and feel that I was overly harsh. I was irritated about the rushed upgrade as in private communication with Chen-Tse, I highlighted precisely the possible complexity of this upgrade and how it should be performed properly -- but, that was private communication. Apologies.
Bug#936924: Moving libsvm to Debian Science team
On Wed, Dec 25, 2019 at 10:03:00AM +0100, Christian Kastner wrote: > Andreas, what are you doing? > > On 2019-12-25 07:52, Andreas Tille wrote: > > On Tue, Dec 24, 2019 at 10:39:55AM -0500, Chen-Tse Tsai wrote: > >> I just submitted a PR for dropping python2 dependencies: > >> https://salsa.debian.org/science-team/libsvm/merge_requests/1 > >> > >> Any comment is appreciated. I'll be working on upgrading to new upstream. > > > > Looks very good! I injected the patch by Helmut Grohne (#862234) as well. > > 24 files changed, but debian/changelog only contains two entries. > Nothing about changes to debhelper compat level, patches, etc. It would > have been far more helpful to Chen-Tse (and thus to the team) to supply > feedback on this. [ Andreas Tille ] * Secure URI in copyright format * Remove trailing whitespace in debian/changelog * Remove trailing whitespace in debian/control * Remove trailing whitespace in debian/copyright * Trim trailing whitespace. * Use secure URI in Homepage field. * Fix day-of-week for changelog entry 2.91-1. * Use Files-Excluded to exclude Windows binaries Compat-level was changed before: e544cbc2 (Chen-Tse Tsai 2019-12-24 22:20:23 -0500 7) debhelper-compat (= 12), > Looking at Salsa, you also imported the new upstream version 3.24 an > hour ago, something that Chen-Tse said just before that he would be > working on? Is he wasting his time now? I intended to help by recommending some automatic procedure that fixes a lot of lintian issues. > Furthermore, I indicated previously that after 3 years, we will almost > certainly need a transition (upstream's versioning does not reflect > SOVER. We arrived at liblinear4 from liblinear1 entirely from Debian > builds discovering backwards-incompatible changes). Did you check this > before updating to 3.24? > > Can you please not rush things like this? Sorry about this. I should not have uploaded. > This package has been sitting > there for 3 years, a few Christmas Holiday days more or less will not > make a difference. I (who happens to maintain another package by the > same upstream) offered to help from the 27th; this could have waited > until then and would have profited from doing so. I agree and will not rush without coordination with this package. Kind regards Andreas. -- http://fam-tille.de
Bug#936924: Moving libsvm to Debian Science team
Andreas, what are you doing? On 2019-12-25 07:52, Andreas Tille wrote: > On Tue, Dec 24, 2019 at 10:39:55AM -0500, Chen-Tse Tsai wrote: >> I just submitted a PR for dropping python2 dependencies: >> https://salsa.debian.org/science-team/libsvm/merge_requests/1 >> >> Any comment is appreciated. I'll be working on upgrading to new upstream. > > Looks very good! I injected the patch by Helmut Grohne (#862234) as well. 24 files changed, but debian/changelog only contains two entries. Nothing about changes to debhelper compat level, patches, etc. It would have been far more helpful to Chen-Tse (and thus to the team) to supply feedback on this. Looking at Salsa, you also imported the new upstream version 3.24 an hour ago, something that Chen-Tse said just before that he would be working on? Is he wasting his time now? Furthermore, I indicated previously that after 3 years, we will almost certainly need a transition (upstream's versioning does not reflect SOVER. We arrived at liblinear4 from liblinear1 entirely from Debian builds discovering backwards-incompatible changes). Did you check this before updating to 3.24? Can you please not rush things like this? This package has been sitting there for 3 years, a few Christmas Holiday days more or less will not make a difference. I (who happens to maintain another package by the same upstream) offered to help from the 27th; this could have waited until then and would have profited from doing so.
Bug#936924: Moving libsvm to Debian Science team
Hi Chen-Tse, On Tue, Dec 24, 2019 at 10:39:55AM -0500, Chen-Tse Tsai wrote: > Thanks, Andreas. > > I just submitted a PR for dropping python2 dependencies: > https://salsa.debian.org/science-team/libsvm/merge_requests/1 > > Any comment is appreciated. I'll be working on upgrading to new upstream. Looks very good! I injected the patch by Helmut Grohne (#862234) as well. For the upgrade I was simply using https://salsa.debian.org/r-pkg-team/maintenance-utilities/blob/master/routine-update I developed it for R packages but it works for other packages as well. Since I noticed that the new upstream source includes some windows binaries I'll remove them via Files-Excluded. I hope that you are happy that I'm doing these routine tasks and will sponsor the package for you once ready. Kind regards, Andreas. > Thanks, > Chen-Tse > > > On Mon, Dec 23, 2019 at 4:03 PM Andreas Tille wrote: > > > On Mon, Dec 23, 2019 at 03:06:37PM -0500, Chen-Tse Tsai wrote: > > > I have a quick question. Previously the python modules are installed to > > > /usr/share/pyshared/. Should I use /usr/lib/python3/dist-packages instead > > > if I change it to python3? I see this in the policy and this is also what > > > liblinear uses. Just want to double check. > > > > Yes, follow liblinear example. > > > > Thanks for your work on this > > > > Andreas. > > > > -- > > http://fam-tille.de > > -- http://fam-tille.de
Bug#936924: Moving libsvm to Debian Science team
Thanks, Andreas. I just submitted a PR for dropping python2 dependencies: https://salsa.debian.org/science-team/libsvm/merge_requests/1 Any comment is appreciated. I'll be working on upgrading to new upstream. Thanks, Chen-Tse On Mon, Dec 23, 2019 at 4:03 PM Andreas Tille wrote: > On Mon, Dec 23, 2019 at 03:06:37PM -0500, Chen-Tse Tsai wrote: > > I have a quick question. Previously the python modules are installed to > > /usr/share/pyshared/. Should I use /usr/lib/python3/dist-packages instead > > if I change it to python3? I see this in the policy and this is also what > > liblinear uses. Just want to double check. > > Yes, follow liblinear example. > > Thanks for your work on this > > Andreas. > > -- > http://fam-tille.de >
Bug#936924: Moving libsvm to Debian Science team
On Mon, Dec 23, 2019 at 03:06:37PM -0500, Chen-Tse Tsai wrote: > I have a quick question. Previously the python modules are installed to > /usr/share/pyshared/. Should I use /usr/lib/python3/dist-packages instead > if I change it to python3? I see this in the policy and this is also what > liblinear uses. Just want to double check. Yes, follow liblinear example. Thanks for your work on this Andreas. -- http://fam-tille.de
Bug#936924: Moving libsvm to Debian Science team
I have a quick question. Previously the python modules are installed to /usr/share/pyshared/. Should I use /usr/lib/python3/dist-packages instead if I change it to python3? I see this in the policy and this is also what liblinear uses. Just want to double check. Thanks, Chen-Tse On Mon, Dec 23, 2019 at 2:29 AM Andreas Tille wrote: > Hi Chen-Tse, > > On Sun, Dec 22, 2019 at 09:47:44PM -0500, Chen-Tse Tsai wrote: > > I'm working on an update which removes dependency on cdbs and python2. > I'm > > using liblinear package as the reference. I'll send you something for > > review some time this week. > > Thanks a lot. That's really appreciated > > Andreas. > > -- > http://fam-tille.de >
Bug#936924: Moving libsvm to Debian Science team
Hi Chen-Tse, On Sun, Dec 22, 2019 at 09:47:44PM -0500, Chen-Tse Tsai wrote: > I'm working on an update which removes dependency on cdbs and python2. I'm > using liblinear package as the reference. I'll send you something for > review some time this week. Thanks a lot. That's really appreciated Andreas. -- http://fam-tille.de
Bug#936924: Moving libsvm to Debian Science team
Hi Christian, All, I'm working on an update which removes dependency on cdbs and python2. I'm using liblinear package as the reference. I'll send you something for review some time this week. Thanks, Chen-Tse On Sat, Dec 21, 2019 at 4:26 PM Christian Kastner wrote: > Hi all, > > Regarding liblinear: I thought I already set the Maintainer to Debian > Science Team, I guess I missed it. > > On 2019-12-21 20:11, Chen-Tse Tsai wrote: > > I've created an account on Salsa. > > > > Do you think we should remove cdbs and use another build system > > instead? Please let me know if you have any suggestion. I'm not > > familiar with other build systems. > > Yep, the Debian Policy was updated and recommends dh now. > > @Andreas: Chen-Tse and I discussed upgrading the package in October (I > think), but both did not have the time back then. > > I could also help with some work starting on the 27th or so. As > src:liblinear and src:libsvm have the same upstream, they are quite > similar WRT to building, so src:liblinear (which is up to date) might > have some helpful ideas. > > Given that the last libsvm update was a while ago, I wouldn't be > surprised if a transition were necessary. >
Bug#936924: Moving libsvm to Debian Science team
Hi all, Regarding liblinear: I thought I already set the Maintainer to Debian Science Team, I guess I missed it. On 2019-12-21 20:11, Chen-Tse Tsai wrote: > I've created an account on Salsa. > > Do you think we should remove cdbs and use another build system > instead? Please let me know if you have any suggestion. I'm not > familiar with other build systems. Yep, the Debian Policy was updated and recommends dh now. @Andreas: Chen-Tse and I discussed upgrading the package in October (I think), but both did not have the time back then. I could also help with some work starting on the 27th or so. As src:liblinear and src:libsvm have the same upstream, they are quite similar WRT to building, so src:liblinear (which is up to date) might have some helpful ideas. Given that the last libsvm update was a while ago, I wouldn't be surprised if a transition were necessary.
Bug#936924: Moving libsvm to Debian Science team
Hi Chen-Tse, On Sat, Dec 21, 2019 at 02:11:23PM -0500, Chen-Tse Tsai wrote: > I've created an account on Salsa. Nice, I've added you to the science-team. > Do you think we should remove cdbs and use another build system instead? Yes. Debian Science (and all other teams I'm aware of) are migrating to debhelper with short dh. You have an example in the just uploaded https://salsa.debian.org/science-team/liblinear > Please let me know if you have any suggestion. I'm not familiar with other > build systems. Dh is considered simpler and more transparent. If you might have serious trouble either I (or someone from the Debian Science team who might beat me) will do this for you. I need to admit my time to do so is extremely limited between 24.12. and 6.1. but I'm sure we'll manage in the team somehow. > Thanks > Chen-Tse Thanks a lot for your cooperation Andreas. > On Sat, Dec 21, 2019 at 12:27 PM Andreas Tille wrote: > > > Hi Chen-Tse, > > > > thanks for you quick response. > > > > On Sat, Dec 21, 2019 at 09:48:14AM -0500, Chen-Tse Tsai wrote: > > > Hi, Andreas, > > > > > > I agree with your suggestions. Thanks for putting it on salsa! > > > > Thanks for confirming. > > > > > Should I investigate dropping python2? I can spend some time this week on > > > this. But I may need help with debian stuff. > > > > What exact help do you need? Do you have a login on Salsa? We could > > add you to science-team to grant you commit permissions. I admit I have > > not yet looked into the packaging - just realised that its cdbs which is > > unfortunate since it would not eliminate the Python2 dependency fully. > > > > Kind regards > > > > Andreas. > > > > > On Sat, Dec 21, 2019 at 7:39 AM Andreas Tille wrote: > > > > > > > On Sat, Dec 21, 2019 at 08:28:57AM +, Mo Zhou wrote: > > > > > I second this proposal, and the same for src:liblinear. > > > > > > > > That's done as I wrote. > > > > > > > > > These are high popcon packages, dependencies for a number of other > > > > > packages. They should be team maintained to unblock important fixes. > > > > > > > > To push a bit I just commited > > > > > > > >https://salsa.debian.org/science-team/libsvm > > > > > > > > Last maintainer upload was more than 3 years ago, 2 NMUs inbetween, > > > > package is lagging behind upstream. Anybody is kindly invited to adapt > > > > the packaging (I think we should really get rid of cdbs since this in > > > > turn is Python2) and proceed from here. > > > > > > > > Kind regards > > > > > > > > Andreas. > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Sat, Dec 21, 2019 at 08:35:28AM +0100, Andreas Tille wrote: > > > > > > Hi Chen-Tse, > > > > > > > > > > > > I'm maintaining a package that depends from libsvm. Due to bug > > #936924 > > > > > > that did not received any response since August it is in danger to > > be > > > > > > removed from testing so I'm interested that this bug will be fixed. > > > > > > When looking at the package I realised that while it would fit into > > > > > > Debian Science team scope it is not team maintained nor is there > > any > > > > > > repository in Salsa. That's why I have the following suggestion: > > > > > > > > > > > > 1. I create a repository on Salsa > > > > > > 2. Move the package to Debian Science team maintenance > > > > > > and add you as Uploader > > > > > > 3. Drop Python2 package and close bug #936924 > > > > > > 4. May be migrate packaging from cdbs to dh > > > > > > > > > > > > If I do not hear from you until Monday I assume you agree with this > > > > > > plan and will do so. > > > > > > > > > > > > Kind regards > > > > > > > > > > > > Andreas. > > > > > > > > > > > > PS: @Christian: I noticed that you and Chen-Tse are maintaining > > > > > > liblinear. I have just removed Python2 package and reassigned > > > > > > #936889 to ftp.debian.org to make sure python-liblinear will > > be > > > > > > removed. Thus libsvm can be dealt as suggested. > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > > > > > http://fam-tille.de > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > > > http://fam-tille.de > > > > > > > > -- > > http://fam-tille.de > > -- http://fam-tille.de
Bug#936924: Moving libsvm to Debian Science team
I've created an account on Salsa. Do you think we should remove cdbs and use another build system instead? Please let me know if you have any suggestion. I'm not familiar with other build systems. Thanks Chen-Tse On Sat, Dec 21, 2019 at 12:27 PM Andreas Tille wrote: > Hi Chen-Tse, > > thanks for you quick response. > > On Sat, Dec 21, 2019 at 09:48:14AM -0500, Chen-Tse Tsai wrote: > > Hi, Andreas, > > > > I agree with your suggestions. Thanks for putting it on salsa! > > Thanks for confirming. > > > Should I investigate dropping python2? I can spend some time this week on > > this. But I may need help with debian stuff. > > What exact help do you need? Do you have a login on Salsa? We could > add you to science-team to grant you commit permissions. I admit I have > not yet looked into the packaging - just realised that its cdbs which is > unfortunate since it would not eliminate the Python2 dependency fully. > > Kind regards > > Andreas. > > > On Sat, Dec 21, 2019 at 7:39 AM Andreas Tille wrote: > > > > > On Sat, Dec 21, 2019 at 08:28:57AM +, Mo Zhou wrote: > > > > I second this proposal, and the same for src:liblinear. > > > > > > That's done as I wrote. > > > > > > > These are high popcon packages, dependencies for a number of other > > > > packages. They should be team maintained to unblock important fixes. > > > > > > To push a bit I just commited > > > > > >https://salsa.debian.org/science-team/libsvm > > > > > > Last maintainer upload was more than 3 years ago, 2 NMUs inbetween, > > > package is lagging behind upstream. Anybody is kindly invited to adapt > > > the packaging (I think we should really get rid of cdbs since this in > > > turn is Python2) and proceed from here. > > > > > > Kind regards > > > > > > Andreas. > > > > > > > > > > On Sat, Dec 21, 2019 at 08:35:28AM +0100, Andreas Tille wrote: > > > > > Hi Chen-Tse, > > > > > > > > > > I'm maintaining a package that depends from libsvm. Due to bug > #936924 > > > > > that did not received any response since August it is in danger to > be > > > > > removed from testing so I'm interested that this bug will be fixed. > > > > > When looking at the package I realised that while it would fit into > > > > > Debian Science team scope it is not team maintained nor is there > any > > > > > repository in Salsa. That's why I have the following suggestion: > > > > > > > > > > 1. I create a repository on Salsa > > > > > 2. Move the package to Debian Science team maintenance > > > > > and add you as Uploader > > > > > 3. Drop Python2 package and close bug #936924 > > > > > 4. May be migrate packaging from cdbs to dh > > > > > > > > > > If I do not hear from you until Monday I assume you agree with this > > > > > plan and will do so. > > > > > > > > > > Kind regards > > > > > > > > > > Andreas. > > > > > > > > > > PS: @Christian: I noticed that you and Chen-Tse are maintaining > > > > > liblinear. I have just removed Python2 package and reassigned > > > > > #936889 to ftp.debian.org to make sure python-liblinear will > be > > > > > removed. Thus libsvm can be dealt as suggested. > > > > > > > > > > -- > > > > > http://fam-tille.de > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > > http://fam-tille.de > > > > > -- > http://fam-tille.de >
Bug#936924: Moving libsvm to Debian Science team
Hi Chen-Tse, thanks for you quick response. On Sat, Dec 21, 2019 at 09:48:14AM -0500, Chen-Tse Tsai wrote: > Hi, Andreas, > > I agree with your suggestions. Thanks for putting it on salsa! Thanks for confirming. > Should I investigate dropping python2? I can spend some time this week on > this. But I may need help with debian stuff. What exact help do you need? Do you have a login on Salsa? We could add you to science-team to grant you commit permissions. I admit I have not yet looked into the packaging - just realised that its cdbs which is unfortunate since it would not eliminate the Python2 dependency fully. Kind regards Andreas. > On Sat, Dec 21, 2019 at 7:39 AM Andreas Tille wrote: > > > On Sat, Dec 21, 2019 at 08:28:57AM +, Mo Zhou wrote: > > > I second this proposal, and the same for src:liblinear. > > > > That's done as I wrote. > > > > > These are high popcon packages, dependencies for a number of other > > > packages. They should be team maintained to unblock important fixes. > > > > To push a bit I just commited > > > >https://salsa.debian.org/science-team/libsvm > > > > Last maintainer upload was more than 3 years ago, 2 NMUs inbetween, > > package is lagging behind upstream. Anybody is kindly invited to adapt > > the packaging (I think we should really get rid of cdbs since this in > > turn is Python2) and proceed from here. > > > > Kind regards > > > > Andreas. > > > > > > > On Sat, Dec 21, 2019 at 08:35:28AM +0100, Andreas Tille wrote: > > > > Hi Chen-Tse, > > > > > > > > I'm maintaining a package that depends from libsvm. Due to bug #936924 > > > > that did not received any response since August it is in danger to be > > > > removed from testing so I'm interested that this bug will be fixed. > > > > When looking at the package I realised that while it would fit into > > > > Debian Science team scope it is not team maintained nor is there any > > > > repository in Salsa. That's why I have the following suggestion: > > > > > > > > 1. I create a repository on Salsa > > > > 2. Move the package to Debian Science team maintenance > > > > and add you as Uploader > > > > 3. Drop Python2 package and close bug #936924 > > > > 4. May be migrate packaging from cdbs to dh > > > > > > > > If I do not hear from you until Monday I assume you agree with this > > > > plan and will do so. > > > > > > > > Kind regards > > > > > > > > Andreas. > > > > > > > > PS: @Christian: I noticed that you and Chen-Tse are maintaining > > > > liblinear. I have just removed Python2 package and reassigned > > > > #936889 to ftp.debian.org to make sure python-liblinear will be > > > > removed. Thus libsvm can be dealt as suggested. > > > > > > > > -- > > > > http://fam-tille.de > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > http://fam-tille.de > > -- http://fam-tille.de
Bug#936924: Moving libsvm to Debian Science team
Hi, Andreas, I agree with your suggestions. Thanks for putting it on salsa! Should I investigate dropping python2? I can spend some time this week on this. But I may need help with debian stuff. Thanks, Chen-Tse On Sat, Dec 21, 2019 at 7:39 AM Andreas Tille wrote: > On Sat, Dec 21, 2019 at 08:28:57AM +, Mo Zhou wrote: > > I second this proposal, and the same for src:liblinear. > > That's done as I wrote. > > > These are high popcon packages, dependencies for a number of other > > packages. They should be team maintained to unblock important fixes. > > To push a bit I just commited > >https://salsa.debian.org/science-team/libsvm > > Last maintainer upload was more than 3 years ago, 2 NMUs inbetween, > package is lagging behind upstream. Anybody is kindly invited to adapt > the packaging (I think we should really get rid of cdbs since this in > turn is Python2) and proceed from here. > > Kind regards > > Andreas. > > > > On Sat, Dec 21, 2019 at 08:35:28AM +0100, Andreas Tille wrote: > > > Hi Chen-Tse, > > > > > > I'm maintaining a package that depends from libsvm. Due to bug #936924 > > > that did not received any response since August it is in danger to be > > > removed from testing so I'm interested that this bug will be fixed. > > > When looking at the package I realised that while it would fit into > > > Debian Science team scope it is not team maintained nor is there any > > > repository in Salsa. That's why I have the following suggestion: > > > > > > 1. I create a repository on Salsa > > > 2. Move the package to Debian Science team maintenance > > > and add you as Uploader > > > 3. Drop Python2 package and close bug #936924 > > > 4. May be migrate packaging from cdbs to dh > > > > > > If I do not hear from you until Monday I assume you agree with this > > > plan and will do so. > > > > > > Kind regards > > > > > > Andreas. > > > > > > PS: @Christian: I noticed that you and Chen-Tse are maintaining > > > liblinear. I have just removed Python2 package and reassigned > > > #936889 to ftp.debian.org to make sure python-liblinear will be > > > removed. Thus libsvm can be dealt as suggested. > > > > > > -- > > > http://fam-tille.de > > > > > > > > > -- > http://fam-tille.de >
Bug#936924: Moving libsvm to Debian Science team
On Sat, Dec 21, 2019 at 08:28:57AM +, Mo Zhou wrote: > I second this proposal, and the same for src:liblinear. That's done as I wrote. > These are high popcon packages, dependencies for a number of other > packages. They should be team maintained to unblock important fixes. To push a bit I just commited https://salsa.debian.org/science-team/libsvm Last maintainer upload was more than 3 years ago, 2 NMUs inbetween, package is lagging behind upstream. Anybody is kindly invited to adapt the packaging (I think we should really get rid of cdbs since this in turn is Python2) and proceed from here. Kind regards Andreas. > On Sat, Dec 21, 2019 at 08:35:28AM +0100, Andreas Tille wrote: > > Hi Chen-Tse, > > > > I'm maintaining a package that depends from libsvm. Due to bug #936924 > > that did not received any response since August it is in danger to be > > removed from testing so I'm interested that this bug will be fixed. > > When looking at the package I realised that while it would fit into > > Debian Science team scope it is not team maintained nor is there any > > repository in Salsa. That's why I have the following suggestion: > > > > 1. I create a repository on Salsa > > 2. Move the package to Debian Science team maintenance > > and add you as Uploader > > 3. Drop Python2 package and close bug #936924 > > 4. May be migrate packaging from cdbs to dh > > > > If I do not hear from you until Monday I assume you agree with this > > plan and will do so. > > > > Kind regards > > > > Andreas. > > > > PS: @Christian: I noticed that you and Chen-Tse are maintaining > > liblinear. I have just removed Python2 package and reassigned > > #936889 to ftp.debian.org to make sure python-liblinear will be > > removed. Thus libsvm can be dealt as suggested. > > > > -- > > http://fam-tille.de > > > > -- http://fam-tille.de
Bug#936924: Moving libsvm to Debian Science team
I second this proposal, and the same for src:liblinear. These are high popcon packages, dependencies for a number of other packages. They should be team maintained to unblock important fixes. On Sat, Dec 21, 2019 at 08:35:28AM +0100, Andreas Tille wrote: > Hi Chen-Tse, > > I'm maintaining a package that depends from libsvm. Due to bug #936924 > that did not received any response since August it is in danger to be > removed from testing so I'm interested that this bug will be fixed. > When looking at the package I realised that while it would fit into > Debian Science team scope it is not team maintained nor is there any > repository in Salsa. That's why I have the following suggestion: > > 1. I create a repository on Salsa > 2. Move the package to Debian Science team maintenance > and add you as Uploader > 3. Drop Python2 package and close bug #936924 > 4. May be migrate packaging from cdbs to dh > > If I do not hear from you until Monday I assume you agree with this > plan and will do so. > > Kind regards > > Andreas. > > PS: @Christian: I noticed that you and Chen-Tse are maintaining > liblinear. I have just removed Python2 package and reassigned > #936889 to ftp.debian.org to make sure python-liblinear will be > removed. Thus libsvm can be dealt as suggested. > > -- > http://fam-tille.de >
Bug#936924: Moving libsvm to Debian Science team
Hi Chen-Tse, I'm maintaining a package that depends from libsvm. Due to bug #936924 that did not received any response since August it is in danger to be removed from testing so I'm interested that this bug will be fixed. When looking at the package I realised that while it would fit into Debian Science team scope it is not team maintained nor is there any repository in Salsa. That's why I have the following suggestion: 1. I create a repository on Salsa 2. Move the package to Debian Science team maintenance and add you as Uploader 3. Drop Python2 package and close bug #936924 4. May be migrate packaging from cdbs to dh If I do not hear from you until Monday I assume you agree with this plan and will do so. Kind regards Andreas. PS: @Christian: I noticed that you and Chen-Tse are maintaining liblinear. I have just removed Python2 package and reassigned #936889 to ftp.debian.org to make sure python-liblinear will be removed. Thus libsvm can be dealt as suggested. -- http://fam-tille.de
