Am 18.02.25 um 11:05 schrieb Andrey Rakhmatullin:
On Tue, Feb 18, 2025 at 09:06:53AM +0900, Charles Plessy wrote:Again, given the scale, Debian can not expect that the package maintainers are going to contact each upstream and send a patch. We are not paid for that.Yes, Debian only expects that such bugs are forwarded upstream, not that you also write a patch (unless it's a key package, anyway) and not that you submit it upstream (though it makes sense if you wrote it).On the other hand, we also rely on "the ecosystem" to do the work by themselves so that the packages eventually start to build fine with GCC 15 them after we upgrade them to newer upstream versions.Do we? In my experience there are several classes of a package state in every such transition (not just to a new GCC but e.g. to a new Python version or to a new major dep version with API changes and deprecation removals), and each class always contains a significant number of packages and can't be ignored, ranging from good quality upstreams that already did the work and maybe even have CI jobs with unreleased versions of deps, to long dead upstreams, with many in-between states including ones where somebody needs to notify the upstream about the problem, and in many cases it's either we or other distro maintainer. I don't see that "the ecosystem" solves the majority of bugs in advance without some help of some distro maintainer.
I for one appreciate those bug reports early in advance as well.The experience I have with my upstreams is that they usually build and test their software on stable (LTS) releases.
I don't know a lot of upstreams that run unstable or Fedora Rawhide or have a CI setup for those development distributions. So a GCC build failure like this one will hit them rather late.
Michael
OpenPGP_signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
