Bug#901015: transition: protobuf
Hi,
I've released a new upstream version of protobuf-c that fixes the FTBFS
issue with protobuf 3.6, which fixes #900621. I will upload it to
unstable shortly.
László Böszörményi (GCS) wrote:
> 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?
> How quick do you need to solve this GitLab update? I guess, quick.
--
Robert Edmonds
edmonds@debian.org
Reply to: