Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > linux.debian.maint.python > #13920

Bug#1003567: Please make a separate package for mistune 2.x

Cross-posted to 2 groups.

Show all headers | View raw

[Multipart message — attachments visible in raw view] - view raw

On 2/4/22 9:33 PM, Julian Gilbey wrote:
>>> _mistune.py within the Debian package,
>>> and have nbconvert do "import nbconvert.filters._mistune as mistune"
>>> (see /usr/lib/python3/dist-packages/nbconvert/filters/markdown_mistune.py).
>>> That seems like an eminently sensible solution to this problem.
>>
>> But that'd lead to a number of mistune's embedded copies in a huge number of packages; since majority of
>> the rev-deps (when I last checked) haven't adapted to this new version. When they do,
>> and it becomes a overhead to fix each one later.
>> Even worse, if we discover a security problem sometime later, then all such packages would be
>> effected, and that honestly does not look like a good idea to me.
> 
> This is true, though there are only 7 reverse dependencies currently
> in testing.

Yeah, in total the reverse-deps are 8 and there is one different reverse-build-dep (pasted at end of this mail)
But the problem is if these fall through the cracks, and close to the release we notice some
package is not looking nice.

Also, if you suppose that the upstreams are very slow, and we get to the new debian release with these things still
embedded, it'd be a real mess to upload fixes to stable, right...
  
>> I somehow do not understand the urgency of uploading this newer version, as the maintainer said:
>>
>> | I intend to upload src:mistune 2.0.0 to unstable between March the
>> | 15th and April the 15th (depending on the progress of its
>> | reverse-dependencies).
>>
>> We could simply wait a little more for the dust to settle, IMHO.
> 
> That would be a reasonable approach, but how long will it take for the
> dust to settle?  With this major change, and no guidance from upstream
> on how to migrate, and at least a number of upstream authors happy to
> rely on setup.py having "mistune <1.0.0" in the install_requires
> field, it might be several months or longer before things are fixed
> upstream.
I think we could do this transition even a month or two before the soft freeze starts,
which is roughly an year from now (considering general trend timings of starting in feb in release year).
Situation might improve by then, I suppose.

If it does not, we could still go ahead with the older python3-mistune in the archive, I do not see
a huge problem there, except for maybe a few mistune uploads to stable if desired.

> And what do we do when some packages have converted and
> some haven't?

In such a case, we atleast will have a few examples to see how to go about doing the API changes the right way.
We could patch out at our end and send the changes upstream for review provided we are stuck in an unfortunate situation.

Let me know what you'd think about this?

Regards,
Nilesh


Reverse-Depends
* giara [amd64 arm64 armel armhf i386 mips64el mipsel ppc64el s390x]
* iredis
* lektor
* lookatme
* matrix-mirage [amd64 arm64 armel armhf i386 mips64el mipsel ppc64el s390x]
* python3-flasgger
* python3-m2r
* python3-schema-salad

Reverse-Testsuite-Triggers
* markdown-it-py

Reverse-Build-Depends
* lektor
* lookatme
* markdown-it-py
* python-flasgger
* python-m2r
* python-schema-salad

Back to linux.debian.maint.python | Previous | Next — Previous in thread | Next in thread | Find similar | Unroll thread

Thread

Bug#1003567: Please make a separate package for mistune 2.x Pierre-Elliott Bécue <peb@debian.org> - 2022-02-03 23:40 +0100
  Bug#1003567: Please make a separate package for mistune 2.x Julian Gilbey <julian@d-and-j.net> - 2022-02-04 17:10 +0100
    Bug#1003567: Please make a separate package for mistune 2.x Nilesh Patra <nilesh@tchncs.de> - 2022-02-04 17:30 +0100
      Bug#1003567: Please make a separate package for mistune 2.x Jerome Charaoui <jerome@riseup.net> - 2022-02-04 18:40 +0100
  Bug#1003567: Please make a separate package for mistune 2.x Julian Gilbey <julian@d-and-j.net> - 2022-02-04 17:10 +0100
    Bug#1003567: Please make a separate package for mistune 2.x Nilesh Patra <nilesh@tchncs.de> - 2022-02-04 17:10 +0100
      Bug#1003567: Please make a separate package for mistune 2.x Pierre-Elliott Bécue <peb@debian.org> - 2022-02-04 17:40 +0100
      Bug#1003567: Please make a separate package for mistune 2.x Julian Gilbey <julian@d-and-j.net> - 2022-02-05 20:00 +0100
        Bug#1003567: Please make a separate package for mistune 2.x Nilesh Patra <nilesh@tchncs.de> - 2022-02-05 20:30 +0100
          Bug#1003567: Please make a separate package for mistune 2.x Pierre-Elliott Bécue <peb@debian.org> - 2022-02-05 23:00 +0100
            Bug#1003567: Please make a separate package for mistune 2.x Sandro Tosi <morph@debian.org> - 2022-02-05 23:00 +0100

csiph-web