Hi Thomas,
Thomas Goirand <zigo@debian.org> (2023-06-27):
> Thanks, but I'm not taking it badly. I understand Zhu's point of view, I
> just do not agree.
It's hard to disagree with facts…
> Currently, I haven't seen it just yet, so I can't even have a clear
> point of view on what we're talking about. So yeah, it's urgent to ...
> wait a little bit.
Not quite.
The package currently in unstable is RC-buggy, is lacking a binary
package, is lacking builds, and is immediate blocker for anything that
would get rebuilt against it.
It's urgent to fix at least this. And all that is shown in the excuses,
so there are no excuses not to do so.
And waiting isn't going to change anything because, again as shown in
the excuses:
arch:all not built yet, autopkgtest delayed
So the package is so buggy it's not even getting tested.
> FYI, my package was not removed from Experimental because of a newer
> version in Unstable.
It was auto-decrufted nonetheless with nobody triggering the removal.
See https://ftp-master.debian.org/removals.txt, which you were pointed
to by Paul earlier:
[Date: Fri, 23 Jun 2023 19:56:00 -0000] [ftpmaster: DAK's auto-decrufter]
Removed the following packages from experimental:
golang-google-grpc | 1.38.0-4 | source
golang-google-grpc-dev | 1.38.0-4 | all
That doesn't mean anything is erased, you could have just staged -5 into
experimental again if you really cared.
In any case, the work that every Go maintainer is expected to do doesn't
seem to have been done, and that's the number #1 problem. Why and how
the package got removed from experimental is just a distraction we don't
need.
[Also, the -5 package in unstable shows changes dating back from 2022,
which is confusing. There's no closing statement for #1026139. That
prevents the *fix* to enter testing because the package is considered as
*affected* by that bug.]
Cheers,
--
Cyril Brulebois -- Debian Consultant @ DEBAMAX -- https://debamax.com/
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature