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

Re: Matplotlib 3.10.0 for trixie?



Hi Nilesh, Alex,

Responding to the first point only, at the moment:

On Sat, 12 Apr 2025 at 07:39, Nilesh Patra <nilesh@debian.org> wrote:
> [ ... snip ... ]
> 1. matplotlib has historically shipped /etc/matploblibrc to force tkagg and patched the code
> to use this if there are no user defined rc files see [1]. However, this was not
> handled properly via maintscripts so that'd mean over-writing user-modified /etc/matplotlibrc.

Ah; what is the problem related to the maintscripts?

The /etc/matplotlibrc file is considered a config file by apt/dpkg (it
is not removed unless a purge is requested), so I was hoping that
shipping a default/unmodified matplotlibrc in an updated 3.10 upload
(as Alex suggests in his thread) would provide a useful additional
conflict-resolution step for anyone who has modified theirs.

> The backend detection logic is now better and I feel we should get rid of the "yield '/etc/matplotlibrc'" in
> [1] and also stop shipping the conffile both and add in a rm_conffile to remove previously
> installed /etc/matplotlibrc.

I don't have a strong opinion about this part, although when in
sysadmin mode, I do tend to go looking in /etc first to find config
files.

On the other hand, we wouldn't be the first package to read config
files from elsewhere on the filesystem - pipewire springs to mind as
another case where default config files are located under /usr/share,
for example.

> Probably also a d/NEWS to inform the sysadmin that this no longer works. It does not make
> sense to me for a python lib to have a conffile.

+1 to a NEWS entry.  I'm not so sure about removing the conffile
entirely yet, though.  I think it may be safer to treat it as a
feature deprecation, allowing time for feedback about any use cases
that seem to require it and/or for users to migrate to alternatives.

Regards,
James


Reply to: