upstream and "obsolete"-ness of debian supplied software (was: Re: Is theano worth saving?)
Hi,
On Wed, Feb 08, 2017 at 11:31:10AM +0000, Ghislain Vaillant wrote:
> On Wed, 2017-02-08 at 10:58 +0100, Joost van Baal-Ilić wrote:
> > On Wed, Feb 08, 2017 at 09:47:08AM +0000, Ghislain Vaillant wrote:
> > > On Wed, 2017-02-08 at 10:17 +0100, Daniel Stender wrote:
> > > > On 08.02.2017 09:13, Rebecca N. Palmer wrote:
> > > > > I have patches for #848764 and #831540; I haven't yet found the cause
> > > > > of #831541, but as it only affects big-endian systems, partial
> > > > > removal is an option.
> > > > >
> > > > > However, one of these bugs is a point where upstream plan to make an
> > > > > incompatible change (though my fix doesn't), and upstream aren't sure
> > > > > whether having Theano in a long-release-cycle distribution such as
> > > > > Debian is a good idea: https://github.com/Theano/Theano/issues/5494
> > >
> > > On first read, it sounds to me that upstream is failing to understand
> > > that having theano in the archive does not replace or substitute
> > > traditional development workflow via pip if users want to.
> >
> > And/or maybe upstream feels anybody using an "obsolete" version of theano
> > is doing something wrong. And/or maybe upstream would feel some kind of
> > obligation/duty to support users of "obsolete" versions of Debian-shipped
> > theano on Debian systems, if Debian were to ship with those. See also the
> > xscreensaver debacle, some months ago. I'm just guessing here,
> > extrapolating from other upstreams.
>
> xscreensaver is an application, so upstream's anger was justified since
> users had no other (simple) alternative to using the outdated packaged
> version.
The xscreensaver situation indeed has some different aspects.
> theano is a library, and libraries provided in Debian should be
> packaged as redepends for other frameworks / applications . That's why
> you are invited to provide a justification in your ITPs as to why
> packaging the library for Debian is necessary.
>
> Unlike with xscreensaver, users do have an alternative for using the
> latest theano: fire a virtualenv and use the latest theano there via
> `pip install`.
>
> Same comment for numpy, scipy and the rest of the scientific Python
> ecosystem. Anyone using for instance jessie + the system numpy for
> serious development is clearly missing out, and should get to know
> modern development tools (i.e. venv, pip, anaconda...).
Indeed, true, but there's software developers; but there's also people merely
_using_ applications depending upon the libraries we're talking about.
> > > Our packages are here to support future applications / frameworks,
> > > which may require an appropriately packaged theano. Considering the
> > > success of deep-learning these days, this prospect is quite likely.
> > >
> > > > > (Note that their suggested alternative of using pip will involve
> > > > > manually installing libblas-dev, as pip only knows about Python
> > > > > dependencies.)
> >
> > Anyway, it would be good to make clear what Debian expects of upstream, and
> > how shipping theano with Debian might even be _beneficial_ for upstream.
>
> Indeed, in the form of dynamic CI (with autopkgtest) and testing on a
> variety of architectures they might not have access to otherwise.
> Whether they care or not is a different story.
>
> I believe the easiness of `apt install` which Daniel brought in is no
> longer so much of a *strong* argument, now that pip + wheels has become
> quite mature. That's my personal opinion though.
Thanks for your extra arguments.
The for me personally (system administrator at a university) most convincing
argument in https://wiki.debian.org/AdvantagesForUpstream is: "Administrators
of larger installations can install your software from the official archive and
don't need to make special effort to provision your software." And
administrators automagically benefit from debian-supplied security upgrades for
the software, with zero extra cost.
(And then there's also the worth reading https://wiki.debian.org/UpstreamGuide
, 'though slightly less applicable for this discussion.)
Thanks, Bye,
Joost
Reply to: