Control: retitle -1 Conflicting binaries produced by liburjtag and urjtag
source package
Control: affects -1 src:liburjtag src:urjtag
Control: found -1 src:liburjtag/2024.03.24-1
Thanks
Hi,
I try to summarise the issue about liburjtag and the urjtag package:
1. The binary package liburjtag was originally included into Debian by
the Debian Astronomy Team with the following comment in changelog[1]:
* This package resulted from a fork of urjtag and is needed
for libahp-xc. As soon as the differences are merged upstream
and urjtag provides the same functionality (and library package)
this package can disappear again
-- Thorsten Alteholz <deb...@alteholz.de> Sat, 21 Jan 2023 11:51:45 +0000
2. The source package urjtag is maintained in Debian Electronics team.
The package was not updated since 2016 but Git received a major update
by
Christian Kreidl <deb...@chk.cksf.de> Wed, 31 Jan 2024 11:58:27 +0100 [2]
It was updating the code to the latest upstream.
3. I did a team upload of this code base after upgrading the packaging at
Fri, 21 Feb 2025 19:10:19 +0000
which went to NEW since the packaging attempt by Christian did split out
liburjtag0 and liburjtag-dev. I was discussing this upload long
ago (Wed Oct 16 19:42:45 BST 2024 on pkg-electronics mailing list[10])
4. It was accepted 2:20h later (Fri, 21 Feb 2025 21:32:36 +0000 ) which
was the fastest package accepted[3] from new which I observed (thank
you very fast ftpmaster team!)
5. Some conflict with liburjtag was spotted within a similar time frame[4]
6. I analysed the situation and kept all involved parties in CC at the
next day[5]. I got no answer.
7. I came back to this three days later[6] after verifying the build with
libahp-xc and asked again for technical advise offering help if needed.
8. Thorsten answered[7] only to the list which I do not read regularly
in a way that I was asking a LLM for characterisation of Thorsten's
response:
I had hoped that you revert your mistake and clean up the mess on your own.
The wording came across as 'critical and somewhat confrontational,'
'blunt,' 'disapproving,' and 'uncooperative.' Because of that, it's
difficult for me to assume good intentions when receiving a message
like this-but I'm trying anyway. Thorsten, I'd appreciate it if you
could be more mindful of your wording in the future. Thank you.
9. Thorsten uploaded liburjtag[8] 2024.03.24-1 on
Wed, 05 Mar 2025 19:06:36 +0100
with no notification of any involved party.
10. The to be expected bug #1100873 was filed Wed, 19 Mar 2025 21:09:01
I don't agree that this is simply a "mess that I need to clean up
alone." I asked for technical advice to find the best solution and
offered help in resolving it. Thorsten, if you have specific concerns,
I'd prefer to discuss them constructively.
Your way of communicating is not helpful in solving the problem. In your
mail [7], you neither explained what exactly is broken nor provided any
hints on what might be a good solution.
>From my perspective, renaming one of the liburjtag binary packages would
be a reasonable approach. While the first-come, first-served rule
usually applies, I believe it would make sense for the main urjtag
project to provide the appropriately named libraries, whereas a fork
should have a distinct name.
I'm willing to help solve the issue, but first, we need to agree on what
a sensible solution might be.
Kind regards
Andreas.
PS: Thorsten, you did not pushed your last upload to Git.
[1]
https://salsa.debian.org/debian-astro-team/liburjtag/-/blob/debian/main/debian/changelog?ref_type=heads#L49-52
[2]
https://salsa.debian.org/electronics-team/urjtag/-/commit/1188d7ebfad868b7a5d559bbf88b396c594612b0
[3]
https://tracker.debian.org/news/1619889/accepted-urjtag-202103-1-source-amd64-all-into-unstable/
[4]
https://alioth-lists.debian.net/pipermail/pkg-electronics-devel/2025-February/012290.html
[5]
https://alioth-lists.debian.net/pipermail/pkg-electronics-devel/2025-February/012292.html
[6]
https://alioth-lists.debian.net/pipermail/pkg-electronics-devel/2025-February/012312.html
[7]
https://alioth-lists.debian.net/pipermail/pkg-electronics-devel/2025-February/012313.html
[8]
https://tracker.debian.org/news/1624582/accepted-liburjtag-20240324-1-source-amd64-into-unstable/
[9] https://bugs.debian.org/1100873
[10]
https://alioth-lists.debian.net/pipermail/pkg-electronics-devel/2024-October/011837.html
--
https://fam-tille.de
