Re: Upload of TeX Info 7.0.x to unstable?
Am 01.02.2023 um 23:32 schrieb Hilmar Preuße:
> Am 25.01.2023 um 22:08 teilte Sebastian Ramacher mit:
>> On 2023-01-24 09:23:26 +0100, Hilmar Preuße wrote:
>
> Dear release managers,
>
>>> TeX Info version 7.0 was released last year at beginning of November and
>>> was uploaded to experimental. We got a few bug reports, which were
>>> addressed by upstream authors promptly.
>>> Since then two bugfix releases appeared (currently 7.0.2) and we could
>>> think about uploading to unstable. According to [1] we are neither in
>>> the tool chain nor would this be a transition. Nevertheless we know that
>>> a few(?) packages use makeinfo and texi2* to convert documents, so
>>> uploading could cause breakage and FTBFS bugs when building docs.
>>
>> Did you perform a test rebuild of the reverse build dependencies? That
>> would make it every easy to answer the question whether its safe or not.
>>
> I got a response from Lucas:
>
> <snip>
> At http://qa-logs.debian.net/2023/01/31/ you will find build logs for
> packages:
> 1) currently in testing
> 2) that failed with the new texinfo but succeeded in vanilla unstable
>
> In addition to those, octave's build hang but I don't have the build
> log, so this would need to be retried.
> </snip>
>
> This is a list of 15 (+1) packages, which likely disqualifies for an
> upload of TeX Info 7.0. I'll try to look into these issues in the next
> days, but I have doubt that I'm even able to evaluate if these are bugs
> in makeinfo or bugs in the packages.
I had a look at some of these logs, and all cases appear to be tripping
over the following change mentioned in texinfo's NEWS file.
,----
| 7.0 (7 November 2022)
| * texi2any
| . HTML output:
| . use manual_name_html as output directory for split HTML instead of
| manual_name or manual_name.html
`----
Which seems to rather gratuitously break existing Makefiles left and
right. Actually it surprises me that only 15 packages FTBFS due to that
incompatible change, there will likely be other cases where HTML
documentation silently goes missing. :-(
Cheers,
Sven
Reply to: