Re: RFS: poppler (updated package)
Hi, Anyway, the uploaded packge is unblocked :-) On Mon, Aug 23, 2010 at 12:34:04AM -0400, Michael Gilbert wrote: > OK. The goal there was to prevent downstreams from shipping xpdf > alongside an incompatible poppler, which Ubuntu looks on course to do > [0]. If you know of an appropriate solution to this problem, please let > me know. Interesting POV. * With < dependency, Ubuntu will not build. * Without < dependency, Ubuntu will build broken package and publish such package. This is I guess Universe program for them. They make minimum efforts and gurantee nothing as I understand. Your bug report may be enough for now. Do you have patch to address API change? Then add it to the source and bug report. If you can, please upload to PPA etc. I do not know Ubuntu enough to suggest answer. Anyway, after squeeze, we need to make patch to adopt 0.14 API. This is why I wanted to have clear link to gentoo patch origin. I am sure they may update to 0.14 API. > > * 5ab7d313878ddee9307f6c609b90dd84d71a8fc2 > OK. I agree with that. However, the bug does exist and mixed systems > are a rather common use case for many end users. Wouldn't it be better > to keep the bug open and reassign to fontconfig (where the expat > dependency originates) to have them take a look at the origins of the > issue? The best course of action is what you suggested if we can trace it down for sure. fontconfig already have versioned dependency libexpat1 (>= 1.95.8). What was reported was (>= 2.0.1-7) But I did not have ways to confirm this versioned dependency was from fontconfig for sure. We have limitted resources. If you or original bug reporter wish to make such effort, please reopen bug and make appropriate reassignment. Osamu -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-mentors-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/20100823141755.gc4...@debian.org
Re: RFS: poppler (updated package)
On Sat, 21 Aug 2010 12:55:10 +0900 Osamu Aoki wrote: > Hi, > > On Thu, Aug 19, 2010 at 09:36:21PM +0900, Osamu Aoki wrote: > ... > > let's move on to upload xpdf in nice shape. > > > > * xpdf 3.02-10 (as planned, please finalize git by tommorow.) > > I reviewd your recent changes to packahes and reverted followings: > > * 5ebeca9c23695beaadf120f849de2008f4000938 > > This introduced poppler < 0.13 in Build-Depends. > > I do not like this. I am not expert enough to explain here, no packages > I remember define < type limitation in "Build-Depends:..." in general. > I also checked packages depending on libpoppler-dev or > libpoppler-glib-dev such as luatex, inkscape, evince, openoffice.org, > texlive-bin... For bumping library API, I thought we do Source upload > or Binary-only NMUs (binNMUs). OK. The goal there was to prevent downstreams from shipping xpdf alongside an incompatible poppler, which Ubuntu looks on course to do [0]. If you know of an appropriate solution to this problem, please let me know. > * 5ab7d313878ddee9307f6c609b90dd84d71a8fc2 > > I also do not like your quick inclusion of versioned dependency to > libexpat1. This breakage was on mixed system anyway. This versioned > dependency should be declared by the package if it is needed. Placing > random dependency definition as workaround is a bad idea. OK. I agree with that. However, the bug does exist and mixed systems are a rather common use case for many end users. Wouldn't it be better to keep the bug open and reassign to fontconfig (where the expat dependency originates) to have them take a look at the origins of the issue? Thanks for your feedback, Mike [0] https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/xpdf/+bug/619002 -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-mentors-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/20100823003404.63221ea0.michael.s.gilb...@gmail.com
Re: RFS: poppler (updated package)
Hi, On Thu, Aug 19, 2010 at 09:36:21PM +0900, Osamu Aoki wrote: ... > let's move on to upload xpdf in nice shape. > > * xpdf 3.02-10 (as planned, please finalize git by tommorow.) I reviewd your recent changes to packahes and reverted followings: * 5ebeca9c23695beaadf120f849de2008f4000938 This introduced poppler < 0.13 in Build-Depends. I do not like this. I am not expert enough to explain here, no packages I remember define < type limitation in "Build-Depends:..." in general. I also checked packages depending on libpoppler-dev or libpoppler-glib-dev such as luatex, inkscape, evince, openoffice.org, texlive-bin... For bumping library API, I thought we do Source upload or Binary-only NMUs (binNMUs). * 5ab7d313878ddee9307f6c609b90dd84d71a8fc2 I also do not like your quick inclusion of versioned dependency to libexpat1. This breakage was on mixed system anyway. This versioned dependency should be declared by the package if it is needed. Placing random dependency definition as workaround is a bad idea. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-mentors-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/20100821035509.ga5...@debian.org
Re: RFS: poppler (updated package)
On Wed, Aug 18, 2010 at 11:22:38AM -0400, Michael Gilbert wrote: V> On Wed, 18 Aug 2010 11:20:23 -0400, Michael Gilbert wrote: > > On Wed, 18 Aug 2010 21:03:08 +0900, Osamu Aoki wrote: > > > At this point, we should not upload this trivial fix but we need to wait > > > package migration of poppler. > > > > I agree that this change is trivial (and rather unnecessary), but the > > release team was insistent (at least with me) that they wouldn't > > unblock until it was fixed. It appears that they are less stringent > > for unblock requests coming directly from DDs. I do not know ... If you compare: http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=592812 http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=593435 Mine uses reportbug which makes formatted letter including required command for archive maintainance (i.e., less work for release team). Also my request was more explicit than yours citing "RC". These made release team to understand importentance of my request without argument and tilted judgement toward accepting request without question. That is my take. (Once you get some suggestion, you are not expected to argue with release team. If they requested, you should have made such package immediately.) Anyway this is history, please read on. > > However, I'm not sure if your unblock went through; at least according > > to the qa page its still blocked [0]. It takes some time to get these archive script to be run. Now both xpdf 3.02-9 and poppler 0.12.4-1.1 are in testing. > > > > The previous poppler package that I had sponsored fixed an RC issue by > > > > versioning a Conflicts entry. The release team wants the corresponding > > > > > > Where is this discussion? > > > > See my freeze exception request: http://bugs.debian.org/592812. > > Actually that doesn't cover the entire discussion. I had a > conversation on #debian-release that was more definitive, which I can > send later. There may be some good reason behind "Conflicts and Replaces not versioned in the same way". Unless you really want to upload poppler 0.12.4-1.2, let's move on to upload xpdf in nice shape. * xpdf 3.02-10 (as planned, please finalize git by tommorow.) Let poppler maintainer worry fixing cosmetic issues. There are many. Osamu -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-mentors-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/20100819123620.ga4...@debian.org
Re: RFS: poppler (updated package)
On Wed, 18 Aug 2010 11:20:23 -0400, Michael Gilbert wrote: > On Wed, 18 Aug 2010 21:03:08 +0900, Osamu Aoki wrote: > > Hi, > > > > On Sun, Aug 15, 2010 at 05:52:48PM -0400, Michael Gilbert wrote: > > > Dear mentors, > > > > > > I am looking for a sponsor for the new version 0.12.4-1.2 > > > of my package "poppler". > > > > > > The package can be found on mentors.debian.net: > > > - URL: http://mentors.debian.net/debian/pool/main/p/poppler > > > - Source repository: deb-src http://mentors.debian.net/debian unstable > > > main contrib non-free > > > - dget > > > http://mentors.debian.net/debian/pool/main/p/poppler/poppler_0.12.4-1.2.dsc > > > > I was going to upload this but ... > > > > I send unblock request on -1.1 before reading this mail. After my > > dinner, I saw my unblock request has been accepted. > > > > At this point, we should not upload this trivial fix but we need to wait > > package migration of poppler. > > I agree that this change is trivial (and rather unnecessary), but the > release team was insistent (at least with me) that they wouldn't > unblock until it was fixed. It appears that they are less stringent > for unblock requests coming directly from DDs. > > However, I'm not sure if your unblock went through; at least according > to the qa page its still blocked [0]. > > > > The previous poppler package that I had sponsored fixed an RC issue by > > > versioning a Conflicts entry. The release team wants the corresponding > > > > Where is this discussion? > > See my freeze exception request: http://bugs.debian.org/592812. Actually that doesn't cover the entire discussion. I had a conversation on #debian-release that was more definitive, which I can send later. Mike -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-mentors-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/20100818112238.ff714519.michael.s.gilb...@gmail.com
Re: RFS: poppler (updated package)
On Wed, 18 Aug 2010 21:03:08 +0900, Osamu Aoki wrote: > Hi, > > On Sun, Aug 15, 2010 at 05:52:48PM -0400, Michael Gilbert wrote: > > Dear mentors, > > > > I am looking for a sponsor for the new version 0.12.4-1.2 > > of my package "poppler". > > > > The package can be found on mentors.debian.net: > > - URL: http://mentors.debian.net/debian/pool/main/p/poppler > > - Source repository: deb-src http://mentors.debian.net/debian unstable main > > contrib non-free > > - dget > > http://mentors.debian.net/debian/pool/main/p/poppler/poppler_0.12.4-1.2.dsc > > I was going to upload this but ... > > I send unblock request on -1.1 before reading this mail. After my > dinner, I saw my unblock request has been accepted. > > At this point, we should not upload this trivial fix but we need to wait > package migration of poppler. I agree that this change is trivial (and rather unnecessary), but the release team was insistent (at least with me) that they wouldn't unblock until it was fixed. It appears that they are less stringent for unblock requests coming directly from DDs. However, I'm not sure if your unblock went through; at least according to the qa page its still blocked [0]. > > The previous poppler package that I had sponsored fixed an RC issue by > > versioning a Conflicts entry. The release team wants the corresponding > > Where is this discussion? See my freeze exception request: http://bugs.debian.org/592812. Best wishes, Mike [0] http://qa.debian.org/excuses.php?package=poppler -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-mentors-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/20100818112023.414f0196.michael.s.gilb...@gmail.com
Re: RFS: poppler (updated package)
Hi, On Sun, Aug 15, 2010 at 05:52:48PM -0400, Michael Gilbert wrote: > Dear mentors, > > I am looking for a sponsor for the new version 0.12.4-1.2 > of my package "poppler". > > The package can be found on mentors.debian.net: > - URL: http://mentors.debian.net/debian/pool/main/p/poppler > - Source repository: deb-src http://mentors.debian.net/debian unstable main > contrib non-free > - dget > http://mentors.debian.net/debian/pool/main/p/poppler/poppler_0.12.4-1.2.dsc I was going to upload this but ... I send unblock request on -1.1 before reading this mail. After my dinner, I saw my unblock request has been accepted. At this point, we should not upload this trivial fix but we need to wait package migration of poppler. > The previous poppler package that I had sponsored fixed an RC issue by > versioning a Conflicts entry. The release team wants the corresponding Where is this discussion? > Replaces entry versioned as well before they will grant a freeze > exception for poppler. I've fixed that in this version. > > I would be glad if someone uploaded this package for me. I am not well connected to net at this time but I am concerned how this evolves. Important this is to get poppler -1.1 going to testing and xpdf to testing. Then we can fix and clean up minor issues. Osamu -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-mentors-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/20100818120307.ga23...@debian.org
RFS: poppler (updated package)
Dear mentors, I am looking for a sponsor for the new version 0.12.4-1.2 of my package "poppler". The package can be found on mentors.debian.net: - URL: http://mentors.debian.net/debian/pool/main/p/poppler - Source repository: deb-src http://mentors.debian.net/debian unstable main contrib non-free - dget http://mentors.debian.net/debian/pool/main/p/poppler/poppler_0.12.4-1.2.dsc The previous poppler package that I had sponsored fixed an RC issue by versioning a Conflicts entry. The release team wants the corresponding Replaces entry versioned as well before they will grant a freeze exception for poppler. I've fixed that in this version. I would be glad if someone uploaded this package for me. Kind regards, Michael Gilbert -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-mentors-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/20100815175248.12e14b32.michael.s.gilb...@gmail.com
