Re: radare2 / rizin community split
Hi, On Mon, Jan 25, 2021 at 10:40:37AM +0100, Robert Haist wrote: > while investigating a new update for radare2-cutter in regard to a > planed removal of the package from my side I disovered that there > has been a recent upstream community split that might be relevant > to our packaging efforts in the whole radare2 realm[1]. > > The original developers of radare2-cutter left the project and are > now working on a radare2 fork called rizin that is focused on > stability. > > [1] https://rizin.re/posts/faq/#why-did-you-fork-radare2 Ok. Let's see what happens. For now it seems both projects are actively receiving and handling patches. > 1.12.0 will be the last release of cutter with r2 as a backend. > > My suggestion: > > 1. Package rizin in addition to r2 (I can look into that) > 2. RM radare2-cutter because there will be no further updates from the r2 > team and the package name will change nonetheless > 3. Create a rizin-cutter package and make it a replacement pkg > > Any objections or ideas? I suggest: 1. Package rizin in addition to r2 2. Package rizin-cutter "in addition" to r2-cutter 3. Create a transition r2-cutter binary package in rizin-cutter source package, with version increased compared to r2-cutter source package and let old source package be auto-removed: https://wiki.debian.org/RenamingPackages#Transition_package_method -- Sebastian signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Re: radare2-cutter initial upload; possible radare2 update?
Hi, On Sat, Jan 26, 2019 at 11:35:17AM +0100, Hilko Bengen wrote: > what do you think about re-introducing the radare2-bindings > package and packaging r2pipe? > > I'd like to give both a shot. Sure go for it. IIRC they were removed when they were no longer required for bokken. -- Sebastian signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Re: radare2-cutter initial upload; possible radare2 update?
Hi, On Sat, Jan 26, 2019 at 12:32:28AM +0100, Hilko Bengen wrote: > * Sebastian Reichel: > > > Thanks, for taking care of this. I'm currently a bit short on time. > > I noticed, that you enabled OpenSSL, which is not ok. > > Right. Will revert that right away, now that my upload has been accepted > into unstable. > > > Also I think we should switch to upstream soname (3.2.1), which plains > > the way to use meson instead of their own build system. > > As long as upstream keeps their ABI stable across patchlevel releases, > I see no reason for doing that. upstream does not guarantee any ABI stability. This needs to be checked downstream (i.e. the maintainer importing the updated release). > Couldn't we also override the soname picked by the meson > buildsystem? I think that requires patching the build system. FWIW I rebased my meson patch on top of your changes and pushed it into an extra branch: https://salsa.debian.org/pkg-security-team/radare2/tree/meson It works, but uses upstream's soname. -- Sebastian signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Re: radare2-cutter initial upload; possible radare2 update?
Hi, On Thu, Jan 24, 2019 at 12:04:29AM +0100, Hilko Bengen wrote: > * Samuel Henrique: > > > I know that you're asking for objections, but I'd say please go ahead, > > especially because this new release of radare2 ships lots of > > improvements and somebody sent an email to our team's list requesting > > for 3.2.1 already (at least one person will be happy with it). > > Thank you. I'll upload radare/3.2.1+dfsg-1 right now. It will have to go > through NEW because of a SONAME bump, of course. After it has been > accepted, I'll follow up with radare2-cutter, hoping to get it into the > archive before the soft-freeze. > > Unless there are objections, of course. :-) Thanks, for taking care of this. I'm currently a bit short on time. I noticed, that you enabled OpenSSL, which is not ok. Most of R2 is LGPL, but there is some GPL code in it. Also I think we should switch to upstream soname (3.2.1), which plains the way to use meson instead of their own build system. -- Sebastian signature.asc Description: PGP signature
