Bug#904978: ITP: protobuf-2 -- This is the protobuf pacakge but version 2.6.1 same as that foudn in jessie but is being packaged to unstable since kotlin-1.1.1 needs it. p.s kotlin-1.1.1 is also being

[Emmanuel Bourg]

Le 09/08/2018 à 15:05, 殷啟聰 | Kai-Chung Yan a écrit :
> It needs JetBriains's fork of JDOM [1].
> 
> [1]: https://github.com/JetBrains/intellij-deps-jdom

Interesting. Looking at the commit history I think we should be able to
reuse the current libjdom2-java package by removing some final modifiers
and restoring a couple of missing methods.

Bug#904978: ITP: protobuf-2 -- This is the protobuf pacakge but version 2.6.1 same as that foudn in jessie but is being packaged to unstable since kotlin-1.1.1 needs it. p.s kotlin-1.1.1 is also being

[殷啟聰 | Kai-Chung Yan]

It needs JetBriains's fork of JDOM [1].

[1]: https://github.com/JetBrains/intellij-deps-jdom

Emmanuel Bourg 於 2018年08月09日 16:33 寫道:
>> We can do this to `picocontainer`, `protobuf`,`spullara-cli-parser`
>> and `jdom`.
> 
> We already have two version of jdom (libjdom1-java and libjdom2-java).
> What is the version required by Kotlin?
> 
> Emmanuel Bourg
> 



signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature

Bug#904978: ITP: protobuf-2 -- This is the protobuf pacakge but version 2.6.1 same as that foudn in jessie but is being packaged to unstable since kotlin-1.1.1 needs it. p.s kotlin-1.1.1 is also being

[Emmanuel Bourg]

> We can do this to `picocontainer`, `protobuf`,`spullara-cli-parser`
> and `jdom`.

We already have two version of jdom (libjdom1-java and libjdom2-java).
What is the version required by Kotlin?

Emmanuel Bourg

Bug#904978: ITP: protobuf-2 -- This is the protobuf pacakge but version 2.6.1 same as that foudn in jessie but is being packaged to unstable since kotlin-1.1.1 needs it. p.s kotlin-1.1.1 is also being

[Jonas Smedegaard]

Quoting 殷啟聰 | Kai-Chung Yan (2018-08-07 15:33:22)
> Is this version of protobuf only required by Kotlin? I am thinking 
> that maybe we can just include all those legacy libraries (and 
> possibly JetBrains-modified ones) inside either Kotlin or 
> `intellij-core` as they tend to be used only by those 2 projects at 
> the moment. Thus we can really save a great amount of time from 
> waiting for the NEW queue. We can do this to `picocontainer`, 
> `protobuf`,`spullara-cli-parser` and `jdom`.

Please do _not_ hide problems like that!  It will become a security 
headache.


 - Jonas

-- 
 * Jonas Smedegaard - idealist & Internet-arkitekt
 * Tlf.: +45 40843136  Website: http://dr.jones.dk/

 [x] quote me freely  [ ] ask before reusing  [ ] keep private


signature.asc
Description: signature

Bug#904978: ITP: protobuf-2 -- This is the protobuf pacakge but version 2.6.1 same as that foudn in jessie but is being packaged to unstable since kotlin-1.1.1 needs it. p.s kotlin-1.1.1 is also being

[殷啟聰 | Kai-Chung Yan]

Is this version of protobuf only required by Kotlin? I am thinking that maybe 
we can just include all those legacy libraries (and possibly JetBrains-modified 
ones) inside either Kotlin or `intellij-core` as they tend to be used only by 
those 2 projects at the moment. Thus we can really save a great amount of time 
from waiting for the NEW queue. We can do this to `picocontainer`, 
`protobuf`,`spullara-cli-parser` and `jdom`.

Saif Abdul Cassim 於 2018年07月30日 19:02 寫道:
> kotlin is already bulky and needs atleast 8-9 more new pacakges and some of 
> them are older versions, including all of them will make things more messed 
> up when we try to update this. Kotlin 1.1.1 is not just for bootstrapping it 
> provides the full functionality of kotlin 1.1.1.
> 
> On 30 July 2018 at 16:13, Colin Watson  > wrote:
> 
> On Mon, Jul 30, 2018 at 05:23:15PM +0800, 殷啟聰 | Kai-Chung Yan wrote:
> > Yes, that Kotlin by Jetbrains. Packaging a language is quite
> > complicated, and we are bootstrapping an older version (so the process
> > can be a lot easier), and then we will update it to the latest version
> > once it's accepted.
> 
> If it's just for bootstrapping, I'd consider temporarily embedding the
> older protobuf version in the kotlin source package instead, with a note
> that this will be removed once you're on a current version.  That should
> be less work for ftpmasters, quite possibly even less work for you, and
> it doesn't make it look like the old version of protobuf is being
> packaged for general use.
> 
> -- 
> Colin Watson                                       [cjwat...@debian.org 
> ]
> 
> 



signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature

Bug#904978: ITP: protobuf-2 -- This is the protobuf pacakge but version 2.6.1 same as that foudn in jessie but is being packaged to unstable since kotlin-1.1.1 needs it. p.s kotlin-1.1.1 is also being

[Paul Wise]

On Mon, Jul 30, 2018 at 7:00 PM, 殷啟聰 | Kai-Chung Yan wrote:

> Unfortuantely even the latest version of Kotlin still uses Protobuf 2.x, so 
> it's not going anywhere in a short time.

Has Kotlin upstream been contacted about this issue?

-- 
bye,
pabs

https://wiki.debian.org/PaulWise

Bug#904978: ITP: protobuf-2 -- This is the protobuf pacakge but version 2.6.1 same as that foudn in jessie but is being packaged to unstable since kotlin-1.1.1 needs it. p.s kotlin-1.1.1 is also being

[殷啟聰 | Kai-Chung Yan]

Unfortuantely even the latest version of Kotlin still uses Protobuf 2.x, so 
it's not going anywhere in a short time. This package will only build the Java 
libraries, everything else is stripped.

Though your suggestion works on another dependency of Kotlin, 
`spullara-cli-parser`, which is no longer used by the latest Kotlin. Thanks!

Colin Watson 於 2018年07月30日 18:43 寫道:
> On Mon, Jul 30, 2018 at 05:23:15PM +0800, 殷啟聰 | Kai-Chung Yan wrote:
>> Yes, that Kotlin by Jetbrains. Packaging a language is quite
>> complicated, and we are bootstrapping an older version (so the process
>> can be a lot easier), and then we will update it to the latest version
>> once it's accepted.
> 
> If it's just for bootstrapping, I'd consider temporarily embedding the
> older protobuf version in the kotlin source package instead, with a note
> that this will be removed once you're on a current version.  That should
> be less work for ftpmasters, quite possibly even less work for you, and
> it doesn't make it look like the old version of protobuf is being
> packaged for general use.
> 



signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature

Bug#904978: ITP: protobuf-2 -- This is the protobuf pacakge but version 2.6.1 same as that foudn in jessie but is being packaged to unstable since kotlin-1.1.1 needs it. p.s kotlin-1.1.1 is also being

[Bastian Blank]

On Mon, Jul 30, 2018 at 12:20:36PM +0530, Saif Abdul Cassim wrote:
>   Description : This is the protobuf pacakge but version 2.6.1 same as 
> that foudn in jessie but is being packaged to unstable since kotlin-1.1.1 
> needs it. p.s kotlin-1.1.1 is also being packaged to unstable.

This is not a description.  Also kotlin, if this is the same as
https://kotlinlang.org/, lists 1.2.51 as version, not 1.1.1.

Bastian

-- 
Deflector shields just came on, Captain.

Bug#904978: ITP: protobuf-2 -- This is the protobuf pacakge but version 2.6.1 same as that foudn in jessie but is being packaged to unstable since kotlin-1.1.1 needs it. p.s kotlin-1.1.1 is also being

[Saif Abdul Cassim]

Package: wnpp
Severity: wishlist
Owner: Saif Abdul Cassim 

* Package name: protobuf-2
  Version : 2.6.1
  Upstream Author : Google Inc (mentioned in debian/copyrights file)
* URL : https://code.google.com/p/protobuf/
* License : (BSD, APACHE 2.0)
  Programming Lang: (java,python)
  Description : This is the protobuf pacakge but version 2.6.1 same as that 
foudn in jessie but is being packaged to unstable since kotlin-1.1.1 needs it. 
p.s kotlin-1.1.1 is also being packaged to unstable.

This pacakge is need for kotlin-1.1.1 which now being packaged for debian, the 
current protobuf-3 in stable and above are incompactible with kotlin.