[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Bug#1008063: marked as done (transition: nodejs)

Your message dated Mon, 4 Apr 2022 21:22:50 +0200
with message-id <YktFipdXv9wvSUlp@ramacher.at>
and subject line Re: Bug#1008063: transition: nodejs
has caused the Debian Bug report #1008063,
regarding transition: nodejs
to be marked as done.

This means that you claim that the problem has been dealt with.
If this is not the case it is now your responsibility to reopen the
Bug report if necessary, and/or fix the problem forthwith.

(NB: If you are a system administrator and have no idea what this
message is talking about, this may indicate a serious mail system
misconfiguration somewhere. Please contact owner@bugs.debian.org
immediately.)


-- 
1008063: https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=1008063
Debian Bug Tracking System
Contact owner@bugs.debian.org with problems
--- Begin Message --- 
Package: release.debian.org
Severity: normal
User: release.debian.org@packages.debian.org
Usertags: transition
X-Debbugs-Cc: Debian Javascript Maintainers <pkg-javascript-devel@lists.alioth.debian.org>

Hi,

this transition correspond to a nodejs 12 -> 14 major major bump.

I carefully checked (twice, actually) that all build-dependencies of
- libnode-dev (arch-dependent)
- nodejs (arch-independent)
can be rebuilt using latest libnode-dev / nodejs, though of course
only the arch-dependent ones are concerned by this transition.

Ben file:

title = "nodejs";
is_affected = .depends ~ "libnode72" | .depends ~ "libnode83";
is_good = .depends ~ "libnode83";
is_bad = .depends ~ "libnode72";

Thank you for considering.

Jérémy

--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message --- 
On 2022-04-02 09:27:38 +0200, Jérémy Lal wrote:
> Le lun. 28 mars 2022 à 21:30, Adrian Bunk <bunk@debian.org> a écrit :
> 
> > On Mon, Mar 28, 2022 at 04:59:58PM +0200, Jérémy Lal wrote:
> > >
> > > Yes, actually all packages depending on libnode-dev/sid now need to
> > depend
> > > on nodejs/sid, or else autopkgtest runs the tests against nodejs/testing,
> > > and that fails.
> > > I'll reupload them if that's all right.
> > >
> > > The other solution is to have /usr/bin/node12, /usr/bin/node14 and
> > > /usr/bin/node
> > > as an alternative link. Which is not going to happen for that transition.
> >
> > Isn't the actual bug that the Breaks of libnode83 against libnode72 does
> > not cover the version in testing permitting obviously non-working
> > combinations of packages, and the correct solution is to make the
> > Breaks of libnode83 against libnode72 unversioned?
> >
> > libnode is not a standalone library but a way to embed into a specific
> > nodejs version, is there a reason why libnode is a separate package and
> > not part of the nodejs package with Provides: libnode83?
> >
> > Other ecosystems are doing it in a similar way, e.g. with perlapi-5.34.0
> 
> 
> Transition happened anyway...

Indeed, with some hints.

Cheers
-- 
Sebastian Ramacher

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: PGP signature


--- End Message ---
Reply to: