Le 26/11/2019 à 20:02, Bastian Blank a écrit :
Hi Sylvestre
On Tue, Nov 26, 2019 at 07:31:05PM +0100, Sylvestre Ledru wrote:
I'm filling this as bug now. Please discuss this issue there.
First, this isn't random. This is generated from the features of the crate.
I am not sure to understand what is wrong with that? It isn't uncommon to
add/remove
binaries from a source package (I am doing that often with llvm-toolchain).
No. But is not common to do that automatically, on thousands of source
packages. So much you even asked the ftp team to drop part of their
checks on new binary packages.
Yeah, I did ask for this and I still think that we (Debian) should evolve to
follow
the evolution of software but I understand that you aren't happy with this
change.
I know I am biased (Mozilla employee here) but Rust is too me the best thing
that
happened to system programming for a very long time.
I'm setting it to serious as several ftp team members told you not to do
that.
Could you please explain what you mean by "that"?
Adding new binary packages automatically. This whole thread was about
the problems of adding new binary packages all the time and you wanted
to way around binary-NEW for them.
I agree that the way we package Rust crates is unorthodox. Just like we
deal with other "uncommon" languages like ocaml.
Maybe there is a better way. I honestly don't know. However, I think that as a
packager of a few rust-based binary, it is really a pleasure to package rust
software.
Cargo and the dependencies mechanisms are working very well (esp when you come
from the C/C++ world)
even if we have some corner cases which we indeed need to address.
Also, I would like to highlight that nobody told me "not to do that". Such
changes have been approved
by ftpmasters for a month without, to my knowledge, any complaint. So, your
message was a surprise to me.
Not making the scope clear was my bad and I want to apologize for it.
Thanks for that!
AFAIK, it happens just twice (librust-web-sys-dev & librust-winapi-dev) on Rust
packages (on 681 packages).
But I don't have the knowledge to fix that issue... :/
Okay. Who does?
Josh Triplett (added as cc) or Ximin Luo are probably the most experienced
folks.
Please remove the wontfix from the bug about the Provides, to declare it needs
to be fixed.
For context, Bastian mentioned in private the bug
https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=942898
And I am not the one who set the wontfix tag and for now, despite the
unorthodox packaging method,
I haven't seen any blocking argument (besides more work for ftpmaters), only
potential future issues which don't
happen for now. The CPU/bandwidth overhead is currently minimal.
Cheers,
Sylvestre
