Dear release managers,
TeX Info version 7.0 was released last year at beginning of November and
was uploaded to experimental. We got a few bug reports, which were
addressed by upstream authors promptly.
Since then two bugfix releases appeared (currently 7.0.2) and we could
think about uploading to unstable. According to [1] we are neither in
the tool chain nor would this be a transition. Nevertheless we know that
a few(?) packages use makeinfo and texi2* to convert documents, so
uploading could cause breakage and FTBFS bugs when building docs.
Therefore I'm hesitating to upload even to unstable. Let me know your opinion.
Hilmar
[1] https://release.debian.org/testing/freeze_policy.html
--
sigfault
On 2023-01-24 09:23:26 +0100, Hilmar Preuße wrote:
TeX Info version 7.0 was released last year at beginning of November and
was uploaded to experimental. We got a few bug reports, which were
addressed by upstream authors promptly.
Since then two bugfix releases appeared (currently 7.0.2) and we could
think about uploading to unstable. According to [1] we are neither in
the tool chain nor would this be a transition. Nevertheless we know that
a few(?) packages use makeinfo and texi2* to convert documents, so
uploading could cause breakage and FTBFS bugs when building docs.
Did you perform a test rebuild of the reverse build dependencies? That
would make it every easy to answer the question whether its safe or not.
Am 25.01.2023 um 22:08 teilte Sebastian Ramacher mit:
On 2023-01-24 09:23:26 +0100, Hilmar Preuße wrote:
Hello Sebastian,
TeX Info version 7.0 was released last year at beginning of November and was uploaded to experimental. We got a few bug reports, which were addressed by upstream authors promptly.
Since then two bugfix releases appeared (currently 7.0.2) and we could think about uploading to unstable. According to [1] we are neither in
the tool chain nor would this be a transition. Nevertheless we know that a few(?) packages use makeinfo and texi2* to convert documents, so uploading could cause breakage and FTBFS bugs when building docs.
Did you perform a test rebuild of the reverse build dependencies? That would make it every easy to answer the question whether its safe or not.
No, I did not. Could you trigger that or let me know how to do it?
On 2023-01-25 23:17:54 +0100, Hilmar Preuße wrote:
Am 25.01.2023 um 22:08 teilte Sebastian Ramacher mit:
On 2023-01-24 09:23:26 +0100, Hilmar Preuße wrote:
TeX Info version 7.0 was released last year at beginning of November and
was uploaded to experimental. We got a few bug reports, which were addressed by upstream authors promptly.
Since then two bugfix releases appeared (currently 7.0.2) and we could think about uploading to unstable. According to [1] we are neither in the tool chain nor would this be a transition. Nevertheless we know that
a few(?) packages use makeinfo and texi2* to convert documents, so uploading could cause breakage and FTBFS bugs when building docs.
Did you perform a test rebuild of the reverse build dependencies? That would make it every easy to answer the question whether its safe or not.
No, I did not. Could you trigger that or let me know how to do it?
There's https://wiki.debian.org/MassRebuilds - best to talk to Lucas.
On Thu, Jan 26, 2023 at 2:24 AM Sebastian Ramacher <sramacher@debian.org> wrote:
There's https://wiki.debian.org/MassRebuilds - best to talk to Lucas.
There is also the "ratt - Rebuild All The Things" tool written by
Michael Stapelberg, originally for the Debian Go Packaging Team, but
works on any other non-Go packages! I am now trying it on libwebp
1.2.4-1 which I uploaded a while ago (which I didn't test with ratt
back then but thankfully didn't break anything), and it is running
great on my local machine!
"apt install ratt", and optionally "apt install dose-extra" too if it
didn't get installed, for better reverse-dependency checking (i.e.
more comprehensive list of packages to test rebuild).
On 2023-01-24 09:23:26 +0100, Hilmar Preuße wrote:
TeX Info version 7.0 was released last year at beginning of November and
was uploaded to experimental. We got a few bug reports, which were
addressed by upstream authors promptly.
Since then two bugfix releases appeared (currently 7.0.2) and we could
think about uploading to unstable. According to [1] we are neither in
the tool chain nor would this be a transition. Nevertheless we know that
a few(?) packages use makeinfo and texi2* to convert documents, so
uploading could cause breakage and FTBFS bugs when building docs.
Did you perform a test rebuild of the reverse build dependencies? That
would make it every easy to answer the question whether its safe or not.
Am 25.01.2023 um 22:08 teilte Sebastian Ramacher mit:
On 2023-01-24 09:23:26 +0100, Hilmar Preuße wrote:
Dear release managers,
I got a response from Lucas:TeX Info version 7.0 was released last year at beginning of November and >>> was uploaded to experimental. We got a few bug reports, which were
addressed by upstream authors promptly.
Since then two bugfix releases appeared (currently 7.0.2) and we could
think about uploading to unstable. According to [1] we are neither in
the tool chain nor would this be a transition. Nevertheless we know that >>> a few(?) packages use makeinfo and texi2* to convert documents, so
uploading could cause breakage and FTBFS bugs when building docs.
Did you perform a test rebuild of the reverse build dependencies? That
would make it every easy to answer the question whether its safe or not.
<snip>
At http://qa-logs.debian.net/2023/01/31/ you will find build logs for packages:
1) currently in testing
2) that failed with the new texinfo but succeeded in vanilla unstable
In addition to those, octave's build hang but I don't have the build
log, so this would need to be retried.
</snip>
This is a list of 15 (+1) packages, which likely disqualifies for an
upload of TeX Info 7.0. I'll try to look into these issues in the next
days, but I have doubt that I'm even able to evaluate if these are bugs
in makeinfo or bugs in the packages.
I had a look at some of these logs, and all cases appear to be tripping
over the following change mentioned in texinfo's NEWS file.
,----
| 7.0 (7 November 2022)
| * texi2any
| . HTML output:
| . use manual_name_html as output directory for split HTML instead of
| manual_name or manual_name.html
`----
Which seems to rather gratuitously break existing Makefiles left and
right. Actually it surprises me that only 15 packages FTBFS due to that incompatible change, there will likely be other cases where HTML documentation silently goes missing. :-(
| Sysop: | Keyop |
|---|---|
| Location: | Huddersfield, West Yorkshire, UK |
| Users: | 299 |
| Nodes: | 16 (2 / 14) |
| Uptime: | 65:44:39 |
| Calls: | 6,691 |
| Calls today: | 1 |
| Files: | 12,228 |
| Messages: | 5,345,874 |
| Posted today: | 1 |