On Tue, Sep 24, 2019 at 5:39 PM Fabian Wolff <fabi.wo...@arcor.de> wrote: > > On 9/24/19 2:49 PM, Roman Lebedev wrote: > > On Tue, Sep 24, 2019 at 3:32 PM Sylvestre Ledru <sylves...@debian.org> > > wrote: > >> > >> Hello > >> > >> > >> Le 24/09/2019 à 12:51, Roman Lebedev a écrit : > >>> Bump. Any chance this could be prioritized? > >>> Lack of python3-z3 package prevents me from porting > >>> some other python2 software to python3. > >> > >> Thanks to the work of Fabian Wolff, we have a better version of z3. > > I'm a little bit out of context here, of *z3* or of z3 packaging? > > Also, link? > > The z3 *package* was several years behind upstream z3, so I put in some work > to package > a more recent version of z3 for Debian, which is what Sylvestre was referring > to. > > >> I don't know if he is planning to work on this soon but if you write a > >> patch > >> i would be happy to sponsor it. > > I can work on it; in fact, there has been a new upstream release of z3 > (4.8.6, current > Debian is 4.8.4), which I'd also like to package. > > *However*, there is one big problem: In order to build the libz3-cil package > (.NET > bindings), z3 (starting from version 4.8.5) requires the 'dotnet' command: > > https://github.com/dotnet/cli/tree/master/src/dotnet > > This command isn't currently available in Debian, and I have no plans of > packaging it, > because I'm very inexperienced with Mono et al. (and packaging thereof). > > > Rather, I'd like to take this as an opportunity to drop the libz3-cil (and > maybe also > libz3-ocaml-dev) package altogether. Those two packages cause _by far_ the > highest > maintenance effort, and I dare presume that they were the main reason why > nobody has > bothered to update the z3 package for so long. > > The question is: Wouldn't it be better to have more regular updates and better > maintenance in general of the z3 package (I'd even consider co-maintaining > it, given > that Michael Tautschnig hasn't made an upload for this package in almost four > years), > at the cost of dropping those two little-used (according to Popcon) packages? > > Because I suppose that I'm not the only one not very knowledgeable about Mono > and OCaml > packaging, and this is a pretty large barrier to working on the z3 package > (because > nobody wants to break these two packages, so they decide not to touch z3 at > all). > > > But now, building the libz3-cil package is no longer possible unless somebody > packages > the dotnet command (in which case we could always reintroduce it), and as to > the OCaml > bindings, I have to admit that I'm not even sure whether they are currently > functioning > at all (I had to do some patching in the build system even just to get them > to build). > > > So, in conclusion: If I'm allowed to drop these two packages (but especially > libz3-cil), > I will have a look at packaging the newer upstream release, and, while doing > so, I can > also include a new python3-z3 package (and probably drop the Python 2 > package, given > that it's reaching its end-of-life soon). > > What are your thoughts on this? I personally would not see dumping libz3-cil and libz3-ocaml-dev as a problem.
> Best regards, > Fabian
