Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > linux.debian.maint.python > #13922
| From | Jerome Charaoui <jerome@riseup.net> |
|---|---|
| Newsgroups | linux.debian.bugs.dist, linux.debian.maint.python |
| Subject | Bug#1003567: Please make a separate package for mistune 2.x |
| Date | 2022-02-04 18:40 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <DNaIW-2ck-1@gated-at.bofh.it> (permalink) |
| References | (4 earlier) <DN9jQ-1uv-3@gated-at.bofh.it> <DN9jQ-1uv-1@gated-at.bofh.it> <DN9Dc-1AM-1@gated-at.bofh.it> <DJ559-49h-15@gated-at.bofh.it> <DN9Dc-1AM-1@gated-at.bofh.it> |
| Organization | linux.* mail to news gateway |
Cross-posted to 2 groups.
Le 2022-02-04 à 11 h 24, Nilesh Patra a écrit : > 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. FWIW, there's a recent patch and PR for the lektor upstream which add mistune 2.x support, so for this particular project I don't think a separate package is necessary. -- Jerome
Back to linux.debian.maint.python | Previous | Next — Previous in thread | Next in thread | Find similar | Unroll 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