From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.6 (2021-04-09) on starla X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.0 required=3.0 tests=DKIM_SIGNED,DKIM_VALID, DKIM_VALID_AU,HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS,HTML_MESSAGE, MAILING_LIST_MULTI,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED,SPF_HELO_PASS,SPF_PASS autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.6 Received: from lists.gnu.org (lists.gnu.org [209.51.188.17]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by dcvr.yhbt.net (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 53E1B1F44D for ; Wed, 24 Apr 2024 11:27:30 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: dcvr.yhbt.net; dkim=pass (1024-bit key; unprotected) header.d=sc3d.org header.i=@sc3d.org header.a=rsa-sha256 header.s=google header.b=Kr6qb0pF; dkim-atps=neutral Received: from localhost ([::1] helo=lists1p.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1rzamN-0006Gh-02; Wed, 24 Apr 2024 07:27:11 -0400 Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:470:142:3::10]) by lists.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1rzamI-0006GI-AS for bug-gnulib@gnu.org; Wed, 24 Apr 2024 07:27:07 -0400 Received: from mail-yb1-xb2a.google.com ([2607:f8b0:4864:20::b2a]) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_128_GCM_SHA256:128) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1rzamE-0000vv-4e for bug-gnulib@gnu.org; Wed, 24 Apr 2024 07:27:06 -0400 Received: by mail-yb1-xb2a.google.com with SMTP id 3f1490d57ef6-ddda842c399so6632267276.3 for ; Wed, 24 Apr 2024 04:27:01 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=sc3d.org; s=google; t=1713958020; x=1714562820; darn=gnu.org; h=cc:to:subject:message-id:date:from:in-reply-to:references :mime-version:from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:reply-to; bh=C5sOnl3t818c+09CXYgkLbwY+c3iIDRd0vYBDcHOwRA=; b=Kr6qb0pFwsmXBuJifzRB1HF4+PA7E5F2Dk6p3FqiH5xdrupCrmI1SpSq6ViixDbeQv pVjwiuqpGqcUAkTdWEfcftggflBcOIIcBiwPs21m4jEQzAZM6YGHaqBTpnGKIsxMqmo4 nOEWkGAme3eu5YovtZNQxRo4BHYNoyIpEXZYc= X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20230601; t=1713958020; x=1714562820; h=cc:to:subject:message-id:date:from:in-reply-to:references :mime-version:x-gm-message-state:from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id :reply-to; bh=C5sOnl3t818c+09CXYgkLbwY+c3iIDRd0vYBDcHOwRA=; b=dzn9OBZLVvLFKeD+3IhcxGK3uhHqc7EEDh6G8qO9EU0tJbSTiTrbQeDaeswwbBneJc tLcr+N/R4ztcD4H5jMVVttmLoEOR/p8+kq8VD+ifyUXbfoIxSpMwYDf75/9LxmphdV9l N6CRBd0TKfwHmxeoPJu9bFFHVua6HL8jyICEZVBgXrFSpfDKHMkU9HgaR8xoYLxJYlZk H2Uu/nr9eJAb5FM4BLoYr3mQJQQbUqoRi584Vc6T8UdmmpoltyZAR4kKJUmsud2j2Ify eqvoM0c9uDllZuZv5X9FONRhBQeKhhQI+uvXt2y5IXaDisx8u0MebSnuuoa7g4dXRYiQ /Lfg== X-Gm-Message-State: AOJu0Ywz6wYEW6opO6+2knftenXsSy/fIaFAVMM92DuCeBf5tvukz2gl yegwQfX1pegYY1AD4r3I2RV0QExQbVPrLzOyV0HH9OA0z3F2MkNLzo3nLoz2D7alCyJDdXGLEQx 4TysQRfR7JIWPf4OKv1j/+pCzGuxfGwjOup7ndofZlU1+CAmGEOE= X-Google-Smtp-Source: AGHT+IEvxoA0H0Ifv8+74HIMnY1oQKYwE1LMsW9MsWUoc9AeKemtq6rLfbxWZVTCZHziqgyb6R88IAsT+oVnx+ubPeA= X-Received: by 2002:a25:804c:0:b0:dcc:ae3:d8a0 with SMTP id a12-20020a25804c000000b00dcc0ae3d8a0mr2625947ybn.48.1713958020108; Wed, 24 Apr 2024 04:27:00 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 References: <346536552.tGq8MHzOUc@nimes> <8477763.soENF2aIni@nimes> In-Reply-To: <8477763.soENF2aIni@nimes> From: Reuben Thomas Date: Wed, 24 Apr 2024 13:26:47 +0200 Message-ID: Subject: Re: Gnulib in Debian To: Bruno Haible Cc: bug-gnulib Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="000000000000f2fc1d0616d5f2bd" Received-SPF: pass client-ip=2607:f8b0:4864:20::b2a; envelope-from=rrt@sc3d.org; helo=mail-yb1-xb2a.google.com X-Spam_score_int: -20 X-Spam_score: -2.1 X-Spam_bar: -- X-Spam_report: (-2.1 / 5.0 requ) BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001 autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no X-Spam_action: no action X-BeenThere: bug-gnulib@gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: Gnulib discussion list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: bug-gnulib-bounces+normalperson=yhbt.net@gnu.org Sender: bug-gnulib-bounces+normalperson=yhbt.net@gnu.org --000000000000f2fc1d0616d5f2bd Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On Wed, 24 Apr 2024 at 01:51, Bruno Haible wrote: > Reuben Thomas wrote: > > (not yet in Debian, sadly, as they don't like me "vendoring gnulib", as > FTP > > Master calls it, or "using gnulib as other packages like Enchant do, an= d > as > > designed", as I call it). > > I assume you are alluding to the mail thread that starts at > ? > Yes. > I haven't read the thread. But you write: > "I am the upstream maintainer of libpaper ..., and also a Debian > Maintainer > trying to get a new version of libpaper into Debian." > TLDR: FTP Master rejected my libpaper package because it contains gnulib source files. I pointed out that other Debian packages for which I am upstream do exactly this and have been accepted, and that it is the standard way to use gnulib. A few senior Debian Developers said they did not consider this use of gnulib to be against Debian policy. But FTP Master's stance appears to be that they will not let any new packages into the archive that contain gnulib sources (or in general, vendored sources=E2=80=94they don't have anything against gnulib in particular!). I = also argued that building against Debian's version of gnulib would risk introducing bugs (I have found that updating gnulib in my projects can make previously-working code fail). Is the problem something that affects the package upstream, or only > something > that is specific to Debian? > It's Debian-specific, though I imagine other distros might also take a similar stance. In this case, the solution is for someone else to repackage libpaper without the offending files (by generating a new source tarball). I have said I don't want to do this myself; to be honest it's just a depressing thought to spend hours doing something that makes no sense to me, and that will potentially cause me bug reports in future. I do sympathise with Debian's aim here, and the long-mooted "libposix" project, or rather an extended "libgnu" version=E2=80=94that is, an install= able version of gnulib that one can use like any other library=E2=80=94would sol= ve this problem for both me and Debian. Maybe I'll summon the energy to tackle some of the libposix to-do list one day. > In the latter case, I don't want to interfere with that. Distros package > the > software like they want to. Debian, in particular, has hundreds of pages = of > policy documents. It's not my business as an upstream maintainer to > interfere > with that. > Sure, I'm just complaining, not asking for a solution. I should have been clearer about that, sorry. --=20 https://rrt.sc3d.org --000000000000f2fc1d0616d5f2bd Content-Type: text/html; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
On Wed, 24 Apr 2024 at 01:51, Bruno Haibl= e <bruno@clisp.org> wrote:
=
Reuben Thomas wrote:
> (not yet in Debian, sadly, as they don't like me "vendoring g= nulib", as FTP
> Master calls it, or "using gnulib as other packages like Enchant = do, and as
> designed", as I call it).

I assume you are alluding to the mail thread that starts at
<https://lists.debian.org/debian-devel= /2022/11/msg00110.html> ?

Yes.
=C2=A0
I haven't read the thread. But you write:
=C2=A0 "I am the upstream maintainer of libpaper ..., and also a Debia= n Maintainer
=C2=A0 =C2=A0trying to get a new version of libp= aper into Debian."

TLDR: FTP Master rejected my libpaper package because it contains gnuli= b source files. I pointed out that other Debian packages for which I am ups= tream do exactly this and have been accepted, and that it is the standard w= ay to use gnulib. A few senior Debian Developers said they did not consider= this use of gnulib to be against Debian policy. But FTP Master's stanc= e appears to be that they will not let any new packages into the archive th= at contain gnulib sources (or in general, vendored sources=E2=80=94they don= 't have anything against gnulib in particular!). I also argued that bui= lding against Debian's version of gnulib would risk introducing bugs (I= have found that updating gnulib in my projects can make previously-working= code fail).

Is the problem something that affects the package upstream, or only somethi= ng
that is specific to Debian?

It's Debian-specific, though I imagine other distros might als= o take a similar stance.

In this case, the solution is for someone else to repackage libpaper wit= hout the offending files (by generating a new source tarball). I have said = I don't want to do this myself; to be honest it's just a depressing= thought to spend hours doing something that makes no sense to me, and that= will potentially cause me bug reports in future.
<= br>
I do sympathise with Debian's aim here, and= the long-mooted "libposix" project, or rather an extended "= libgnu" version=E2=80=94that is, an installable version of gnulib that= one can use like any other library=E2=80=94would solve this problem for bo= th me and Debian. Maybe I'll summon the energy to tackle some of the li= bposix to-do list one day.
=C2=A0
In the latter case, I don't want to interfere with that. Distros packag= e the
software like they want to. Debian, in particula= r, has hundreds of pages of
policy documents. It's not my business as an= upstream maintainer to interfere
with that.

<= div style=3D"font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif;font-size:small" class= =3D"gmail_default">Sure, I'm just complaining, not asking for a solutio= n. I should have been clearer about that, sorry.

<= span class=3D"gmail_signature_prefix">--
--000000000000f2fc1d0616d5f2bd--