Bug#1035310: bullseye-pu: package xz-utils/5.2.11-0~deb11u1
Control: tag -1 moreinfo
On Mon, May 01, 2023 at 01:23:43PM +0200, Helge Kreutzmann wrote:
> Hello Sebastian,
> On Sun, Apr 30, 2023 at 10:17:07PM +0200, Sebastian Andrzej Siewior wrote:
> > On 2023-04-30 18:43:18 [+0200], Helge Kreutzmann wrote:
> > > > - the backport package of manpages-de and manpages-fr provides a
> > > > man page for xz. These files conflict with the one provided by
> > > > xz-utils package. The bpo package and xz-utils in Bookworm have proper
> > > > Breaks: and Replaces: relation to allow smooth upgrades.
> > > > This update of xz does not provide such a relation since the current
> > > > version of manpages-{de|fr} in Bullseye does not provide this
> > > > man page. As per testing, the Breaks: in manpages-{de|fr} forbids
> > > > installing of this xz-utils. My understanding is that once these
> > > > man pages are visible in Bullseye via xz-utils, the bpo packages of
> > > > manpages-l10n stops creating them as part of the build process. They
> > > > are not present in testing/ Bookworm version of the package.
> > >
> > > No, we need to coordinate about this. You previously considered doing
> > > a backport and I asked you several if this is still the case; since
> > > you did not respond, I did not remove the conflicting pages in my
> > > bullseye packport.
> >
> > I added you to Cc: for reason of coordination. I always intended to do
> > -pu instead of a bpo. I intended to respond earlier but didn't manage to
> > do it until now. Sorry for that.
>
> Thanks for adding me and we are all overloaded some times.
>
> > > As bookworm is about to release, I just wonder if that is really
> > > necessary to introduce the translation files in your backport. I'm all
> > > about translations, but this is a bit fragile with two backports with
> > > all the upgrade paths. So hopefully we get this right.
> >
> > Stable Bullseye, no bpo.
>
> I don't know if this ease the situation regarding the required package
> relationship.
>
> From my side this is just a few lines in my rules file and the
> appropriate package relationships, the latter are the tricky part to
> get right.
>
> > > If you still feel this is necessary for your users, then please
> > > contact me and I can perform another upload with the file removed and
> > > appropriate package relationships. (This implies you tell me the
> > > version which introduces the files.)
> >
> > I'm waiting for the stable team to confirm or deny my request. Once that
> > is clear we can see how to move forward.
>
> Ok.
>
> > > Please tell me as well which translated man pages you ship, as there
> > > are also Danish and Ukrainian ones in my backports.
> > >
> > > Please not that I will not perform uploads to bullseye once bookworm
> > > has been released.
> >
> > Only DE and FR made it into the 5.2 series.
>
> So we need to deal with those two "only".
>
> Thus I'm waiting for further information from your side.
You're both going to have to help me a) understand what is the user-facing
problem you're solving which is necessary to fix in stable and b) whether
you're both agreed on how to fix it.
Thanks,
--
Jonathan Wiltshire jmw@debian.org
Debian Developer http://people.debian.org/~jmw
4096R: 0xD3524C51 / 0A55 B7C5 1223 3942 86EC 74C3 5394 479D D352 4C51
ed25519/0x196418AAEB74C8A1: CA619D65A72A7BADFC96D280196418AAEB74C8A1
Reply to: