Bug#1102112: marked as done (Should triton be removed from unstable?)
Your message dated Sat, 5 Apr 2025 11:01:09 +0200
with message-id <20250405090109.GA3649669@subdivi.de>
and subject line Re: Bug#1102112: Should triton be removed from unstable?
has caused the Debian Bug report #1102112,
regarding Should triton be removed from unstable?
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.)
--
1102112: https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=1102112
Debian Bug Tracking System
Contact owner@bugs.debian.org with problems
--- Begin Message ---
Source: triton
Severity: important
User: helmutg@debian.org
Usertags: sidremove
Dear maintainer,
I suggest removing triton from Debian for the following reasons:
* It accumulated one RC-bug:
+ #1067839: triton: FTBFS on armel (undefined reference to symbol '__atomic_compare_exchange_4@@LIBATO)
Last modified: 1 year, 8 days
* It is not part of bookworm or trixie and is not a key package.
This bug serves as a pre-removal warning. After one month, the bug will be
reassigned to ftp.debian.org to actually request removal of the package.
In case the package should be kept in unstable, please evaluate each of the
RC-bugs listed above.
* If the bug is meant to permanently prevent the package from entering testing
or a stable release, but this package should stay part of unstable, please
add a usertag:
user helmutg@debian.org
usertags NNN + sidremove-ignore
* If the bug no longer applies, please close it. If it is closed, check
whether the fixed version is correct and adjust if necessary.
* Is the bug really release-critical? If not, please downgrade.
* If the bug still applies, please send a status update at least once a year.
Once all of the mentioned RC bugs have been acted upon in one way or another,
please close this bug.
In case the package should be removed from unstable, you may reassign this
bug report:
Control: severity -1 normal
Control: retitle -1 RM: triton -- RoM; rc-buggy
Control: reassign -1 ftp.debian.org
Control: affects -1 + src:triton
Alternatively, you may wait a month and have it reassigned.
In case you disagree with the above, please add a wontfix tag to this bug.
Control: tags -1 + wontfix
Doing so will also prevent automatic reassignment.
Kind regards
A tool for automatically removing packages from unstable
This bug report has been automatically filed with little human intervention.
If the filing is unclear or in error, don't hesitate to contact
Helmut Grohne <helmut@subdivi.de> for assistance.
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
Control: severity 1067839 important
Control: tags 1102112 + wontfix
Hi Petter,
On Sat, Apr 05, 2025 at 10:39:52AM +0200, Petter Reinholdtsen wrote:
> I uploaded triton as part of the whisper requirements, but ran into
> problems with whisper licensing and behaviour (downloading models at run
> time without warning users), and have focused the effort on whipser.cpp
> the last few months to see if that is an easier way to get audio
> transcription to work out of the box in Debian. As the whisper.cpp
> package have not yet cleared NEW, it is not clear if this approach will
> work any better, so I kept triton in the archive for now in case I would
> have to go back to looking at whisper.
I appreciate your work on audio transcription. Yet packages with
lingering rc bugs pose a cost to Debian's QA teams.
A closer look at the bug reveals that whilst it actually is a FTBFS on a
release architecture, it never built there and therefore it is not a
build regression. As a result, the severity should be lowered below rc.
I'm closing the pre-removal bug as a result, but I note that another
removal suggestion is due unless #1061219 receives an update.
Helmut
--- End Message ---
Reply to: