[Debian GNUstep maintainers] Planning a GNUstep transition.

Steve Langasek vorlon at debian.org
Sat Jun 21 20:37:22 UTC 2008

On Thu, Jun 12, 2008 at 08:09:39PM -0400, Hubert Chathi wrote:
> Anyone from the release team want to comment on whether we will be
> allowed to move forward with this transition?

For my part, I was reserving comment until the list of packages came in that
would require updating by hand.

> On Sun, 08 Jun 2008 14:24:27 -0400, Hubert Chathi <uhoreg at debian.org> said:

> > Hello, release team, Due to licensing issues, we have been unable to
> > legally update the core GNUstep libraries (gnustep-base, gnustep-gui,
> > gnustep-back) to the latest upstream versions while keeping all our
> > applications.  This issue has recently been resolved, and so the
> > GNUstep team would like to update the GNUstep libraries in Debian to
> > either the latest upstream "unstable" release, or the upcoming
> > upstream "stable" release (which should be released hopefully this
> > Saturday or so).  However, this will involve a soname bump for the
> > libraries, so this is a library transition.

> > This transition should be much less painful than the last GNUstep
> > transition that we had; the last GNUstep transition involved extensive
> > changes to the build system, which required a lot of editing of source
> > files.  This transition should be able to be handled by just
> > recompiling most of the packages (a few packages may need a bit of
> > editing, but those should be the minority), and so should be mostly
> > handled by binNMUs, except in the case where we also want to update to
> > new versions of certain applications.

> > Please let us know if we can go ahead with planning a transition, or
> > what steps we should be taking.  We already have a fairly recent
> > version of gnustep-base, gnustep-gui, and gnustep-back in experimental
> > for maintainers to try compiling their packages against.

Has comprehensive staging been done to make sure that these packages do all
build from source in the new version, or are you just relying on maintainers
to take advantage of what's in experimental?

I seem to remember that at least one of these packages was bound up in the
recent transition mess (through no fault of yours); that's resolved now, but
it's possible that it will get tangled with another already-approved library
transition in the near future.  Do any of these packages depend on the
xulrunner, gpm, exiv, ccrtp, or xmms libraries?

> We are planning on manually updating the following packages
> - agenda.app (new upstream)
> - gorm.app (new upstream, currently in experimental)
> - price.app (new upstream, currently in experimental)
> - projectcenter.app (new upstream)
> - zipper.app (new upstream, currently in experimental)
> - terminal.app (requires a small source change to compile against latest
>   GNUstep, currently in experimental)
> - gnustep-dl2 (maybe.  upstream plans on doing a new release RSN)

This looks like a pretty manageable list, if that's really the whole set of
packages requiring sourceful uploads for the transition; but the above
questions have bearing on whether and when it's practical to schedule the

Steve Langasek                   Give me a lever long enough and a Free OS
Debian Developer                   to set it on, and I can move the world.
Ubuntu Developer                                    http://www.debian.org/
slangasek at ubuntu.com                                     vorlon at debian.org

More information about the pkg-GNUstep-maintainers mailing list