Re: Bug#1012496: Proposed inkscape reversion NMU
Hi ian
On 2023-01-06 11:24:45 +0000, Ian Jackson wrote:
> Hi.
>
> inkscape is currently uninstallable in sid on some release arches,
> due to an FTBFS which seems to be an upstream problem [1].
> This is blocking builds for packages that build-depend on inkscape. [5]
> I'm assuming that the previous version in testing was OK. [0]
This assumption does not hold. inkscape 1.1.2-3 FTBFS everywhere:
https://buildd.debian.org/status/fetch.php?pkg=inkscape&arch=amd64&ver=1.1.2-3%2Bb2&stamp=1664419348&raw=0
> Mattia, you suggested[2] that you planned to roll back in Debian.
> Is there some reason why we shouldn't do that now ? Would it be a
> godo idea ? I'm happy to do it.
>
> Release Team, should I take 1.1.2-3 from testing, relabel it
> 1.2.2+really-1.1.2-3+nmu1, and test and upload it ? [3]
>
> I noticed that tracker mentions that this package will "soon be part
> of the auto-*" transition. I confess that I don't really know what
> that means and following the links left me more confused.
That means that there are some transitions staged in experimental that
require rebuilds of inkscape. Once those transitions start, tracker.d.o
will have a note that inkscape is part of an ongoing transition and
hence uploads should be avoided if unrelated to the transition. Given
that inkscape currently does not build, any upload fixing this issue
would be related and welcome.
Cheers
> If others are already on the case, or people think it would be better
> to leave this situation as-is until after the release, please let me
> know. I'm trying to help, not be an annoyance...
>
> Regards,
> Ian.
>
> [0]
> It is possible that in fact the FTBFS is due to test suite failures
> caused by updates to (build)-dependencies, but I would have expected
> a QA "FTBFS in testing" bug if that were the case.
>
> [1]
> https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=1012496
> https://gitlab.com/inkscape/inkscape/-/issues/3554
>
> [2]
> https://gitlab.com/inkscape/inkscape/-/issues/3554#note_1120324670
>
> [3]
> I think this looks like:
> - prepare the package source code [4]
> - test the s390x build (say) on a porterbox
> - maybe run the autopkgtests locally and on a porterbox
> - upload to unstable
> - reopen bugs that were closed between 1.1.2-3 and 1.2.2-1
> - keep an eye on the autobuilders/testing migration
>
> [4]
> Is there a standard way of representing this situation in
> d/changelog ? If no-one reading this knows, I will ask d-devel.
>
> [5]
> My interest in this is as sponsor/mentor for src:chroma, which
> build-depends on inkscape (using it as an SVG renderer).
>
> --
> Ian Jackson <ijackson@chiark.greenend.org.uk> These opinions are my own.
>
> Pronouns: they/he. If I emailed you from @fyvzl.net or @evade.org.uk,
> that is a private address which bypasses my fierce spamfilter.
>
--
Sebastian Ramacher
Reply to: