[Copying Emilio] On Thu, 12 Jul 2018 10:27:58 +0200 =?UTF-8?B?TMOhc3psw7MgQsO2c3rDtnJtw6lueWkgKEdDUyk=?= <gcs@debian.org> wrote: > [Removed the Security Team Cc, they were relevant for backporting > protobuf to Stretch, not for updating it in Sid.] > > On Thu, Jul 12, 2018 at 10:14 AM Pirate Praveen > <praveen@onenetbeyond.org> wrote: > > On Fri, 6 Jul 2018 10:55:03 +0200 > > =?UTF-8?B?TMOhc3psw7MgQsO2c3rDtnJtw6lueWkgKEdDUyk=?= <gcs@debian.org> wrote: > > > The most problematic point is the protobuf-c dependency package. It > > > was developed (and packaged) by one of us (an other DD), Robert S. > > > Edmonds. It is the most complete C language implementation of Protocol > > > Buffers. While it has a newer upstream release in Git than the > > > packaged version, it's still not compatible with protobuf 3.6.0.1 > > > which is in experimental. > [...] > > What do you think about providing protobuf3.0 in parallel to updating > > protobuf to 3.6? That way we can move ahead with gitlab and provide more > > time for either updating protobuf-c or porting packages to protobluff. > > We can drop protobuf3.0 when protobuf-c issue is resolved. > Actually I would like to investigate every possibility. > 1) Check the list of protobuf-c main contributors[1] if any of them > can / want to continue its development. > 2) Try to update protobuf-c for version 3.6 of protobuf, but I can't > be its upstream developer on the long run. > 3) Patch protobuf-c to use the implementation of scoped_array in Boost. > 4) At least check the required porting needs of dependencies to > protobluff. Ask their maintainers if they want / can do the porting. > Maybe they know other alternatives. > > If these fail and RMs ACK to carry two versions of protobuf then of > course, do it. Emilio? Hi Emilio, Can you comment? > How quick do you need to solve this GitLab update? I guess, quick. > > Cheers, > Laszlo/GCS > [1] https://github.com/protobuf-c/protobuf-c/graphs/contributors > >
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature