1. Forum
  2. Usenet
  3. LINUX.DEBIAN.BUGS.DIST

  • Bug#1081217: Keep this package in unstable

    From Helmut Grohne@21:1/5 to Dr. Tobias Quathamer on Tue Jan 14 21:10:02 2025
    Hi Tobias,

    On Tue, Oct 01, 2024 at 04:46:52PM +0200, Dr. Tobias Quathamer wrote:
    thanks for asking about fava. There are currently two RC bugs, but I'd like to keep this package in unstable very much. I use it, so I'll try to fix the RC bugs.

    Can you give an estimate as to when you want to work on fava? Your
    statement of intention is now three months old. The bug about missing
    sources is now unanswered for almost two years. Chris answered the FTBFS
    bug two months ago, but it remains unfixed. At some point I think it is
    better to pull the plug. Keep in mind that broken packages pose a cost
    to QA teams. Keeping them is not for free. How about removing fava now
    and reintroducing it once the rc bugs have a solution? Alternatively,
    can you post an update on your plans for fixing the missing sources bug
    to #1031724?

    Helmut

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Chris Frey@21:1/5 to Helmut Grohne on Wed Jan 15 01:40:02 2025
    I won't speak for Tobias, but I'm guessing he was waiting on more news
    from me, and I got sick and dropped the ball.

    What costs do broken packages incur? Is it the FTBFS bugs?
    If we get that fixed, will we be less of a burden?

    Fava is a very useful package, and I hope to see it stay in Debian.

    - Chris


    On Tue, Jan 14, 2025 at 08:00:11AM +0100, Helmut Grohne wrote:
    Hi Tobias,

    On Tue, Oct 01, 2024 at 04:46:52PM +0200, Dr. Tobias Quathamer wrote:
    thanks for asking about fava. There are currently two RC bugs, but I'd like to keep this package in unstable very much. I use it, so I'll try to fix the
    RC bugs.

    Can you give an estimate as to when you want to work on fava? Your
    statement of intention is now three months old. The bug about missing
    sources is now unanswered for almost two years. Chris answered the FTBFS
    bug two months ago, but it remains unfixed. At some point I think it is better to pull the plug. Keep in mind that broken packages pose a cost
    to QA teams. Keeping them is not for free. How about removing fava now
    and reintroducing it once the rc bugs have a solution? Alternatively,
    can you post an update on your plans for fixing the missing sources bug
    to #1031724?

    Helmut

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Helmut Grohne@21:1/5 to Chris Frey on Wed Jan 15 14:10:02 2025
    Hi Chris,

    On Tue, Jan 14, 2025 at 07:20:33PM -0500, Chris Frey wrote:
    I won't speak for Tobias, but I'm guessing he was waiting on more news
    from me, and I got sick and dropped the ball.

    Sorry to hear that.

    What costs do broken packages incur? Is it the FTBFS bugs?

    It is not as boolean as it may look. There are very many QA teams in and
    around Debian that perform archive-wide work and the mere presence
    incurs a small cost on each of them. We generally consider that fine. Practically speaking, the FTBFS is a pretty high cost to many of them.
    It makes Lucas/Santiago (who do dedicated FTBFS tests) look into your
    package. It also makes the reproducible team look into your package.
    Many transitions (such as R³-default or /usr-move) use rebuilds to judge
    their effects on the archive and a package that fails to build becomes
    an unknown datapoint and extra effort.

    If we get that fixed, will we be less of a burden?

    A lot, but then the package still cannot migrate to testing. With rare exceptions, we should only keep packages in unstable that are meant to
    be part of stable. Unless there is some way of eventually fixing the
    missing source bug, we should get rid of it. If all else fails, moving
    fava to non-free could be an option (and there it could actually
    migrate).

    Fava is a very useful package, and I hope to see it stay in Debian.

    I hear that. Can we find a compromise? If the FTBFS gets fixed and some
    kind of plan for fixing the missing source one (e.g. moving to non-free
    or detailing how the source shall be included) is sent to the bug
    report, I am convinced that the cost that fava incurs on Debian is
    warranted. It was the combination of serious problems with an extended
    period of lack of progress that made me suggest it for removal. If you demonstrate progress, that argument goes away.

    If the FTBFS fix is simple (no new upstream release), I offer sponsoring
    the upload.

    Helmut

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)