Hi Jorge, On Sun, Mar 19, 2023 at 10:45:32PM -0400, Jorge Moraleda wrote: > Hello Tony, > > I propose that we either reduce the severity, ignore the bug for the > > bookworm release cycle, or remove only the libitext-rups-java binary > > package from bookworm. > > > Thank you. I believe the appropriate action is #3 (remove libitext-rups-java > binary > package from bookworm) because it is useless as it stands.
Action #3 (removing libitext-rups-java) makes it much more difficult to fix the bug in unstable or experimental, and will make it impossible to introduce the fix to a bookworm point release. It means that the package will have to go through NEW again to be be part of Debian. However, given the low popcon count and the brokenness of the package, that may be the best path. If there are users of libitext-rups-java who think otherwise, now would be the time to speak up. > ---- Two other comments for the record > (1) An apt list libitext* > reveals > libitext-java/testing,unstable,testing,now 2.1.7-13 all > [installed,automatic] > libitext-rtf-java/testing,unstable,testing 2.1.7-13 all > libitext-rups-java/testing,unstable,testing 2.1.7-13 all > libitext1-java/testing,unstable,testing 1.4-7 all > libitext5-java/testing,unstable,testing 5.5.13.3-2 all > > I am not familiar with libitext, so I don't know if we really need to > maintain multiple versions of it in the repo. From the comments on the > ubuntu bug report. It appears that versions 1 and 2 are hopelessly updated, > but I do see that there are indeep packages that depend on the older > versions. Not everything is going to run on the latest version, and there are multiple versions of the package in Debian because they are needed. libitext1-java is a dependency of libdoxia-java, which is part of Maven. I don't see how the multiple itext packages are directly related to the problem with rups. > ------------ > (2) If there is a maintainer for libitext-rups-java I would suggest they > upgrade to use at least libitext5-java and then reupload to > experimental. (Version 5 is not so old, but upstream is already at 7). Upgrade requests should be filed as wishlist bugs against the source package. However, if we're going to remove libitext-rups-java from the distribution, then a potential packager could start fresh with a new, separate package for https://github.com/itext/i7j-rups. Returning to the focus of this bug, let's wait to see if there are other opinions regarding rups. If not, I will prepare an upload of the libitext-java source package that removes the libitext-rups-java and file the bugs needed to remove the binary. Thank you, tony
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
