[Pkg-rust-maintainers] Bug#1099838: bacon has an undeclared file conflict on /usr/bin/bacon

[Blair Noctis]

On 13/03/2025 08:35, Blair Noctis wrote:
> On Sat, 8 Mar 2025 19:31:09 +0100 Helmut Grohne <helmut at subdivi.de> wrote:
(...)
>> bacon has an undeclared file conflict. This may result in an unpack
>> error from dpkg.
>>
>> The file /usr/bin/bacon is contained in the packages
>>  * bacon/3.11.0-1+b1 as present in unstable
>>  * ruby-bacon/1.2.0-6.1 as present in bookworm|bullseye|trixie|unstable
> I've talked to upstream, they suggested a Breaks for the time being.
> I agree and would close this bug by doing so in an upcoming upload.
> 
> If we are to dispute the package name, neither of the two sides is 
> overwhelmingly advantageous:
> ruby-bacon is there for over a decade, but it's Ruby specific and has a low popcon;
> bacon (src:rust-bacon) is more generic, and would predictably grow more popcon 
> due to its modern audience, but is only recently packaged.
> It would become a political problem, rather than a technical one.

As Fabian Grünbichler pointed out on IRC I was obviously wrong. With Breaks or not, it's policy violation.

Thus I'm asking for opinions of the Ruby team. Also looping in my upstream.

Since I'm the maintainer on *this* side, the points below are obviously biased. But anyway:

First, like the quote above said, ruby-bacon is Ruby specific. Then:

ruby-bacon upstream development was [halted] in 2017.
Last contentful Debian upload was in 2018, followed by one QA upload in 2021.

It has these reverse dependencies, according to codesearch.d.n:

- ruby-em-redis: upstream inactive, Debian last upload in 2021, popcon 0, 2023 FTBFS bug unanswered; depended on *only* by ruby-em-synchrony, in turn *only* by ruby-faraday, but current faraday code doesn't use em-synchrony

- ruby-rack-cache: upstream active, latest code doesn't use bacon; Debian last upload 2021

- ruby-rack: upstream active, Debian active; code only has two labels named `:bacon`, likely leftover

- ruby-ast: upstream active, actively using bacon, but seems very simple so could be replaced

- ruby-em-spec: ruby-rspec | ruby-bacon

- ruby-temple: all lines mentioning bacon are commented out

- ruby-creole: actively using bacon, seems replaceable

This actually looks like cruft that can be shaved off.

Thus I suggest:

1. Update d/control of ruby-faraday, ruby-rack, ruby-em-spec, ruby-temple to remove obsolete B-D
2. Update ruby-rack-cache to latest/newer version (1.2 in Debian, 1.17 upstream)
3. Patch and/or ask upstream of ruby-ast and ruby-creole to use maintained alternatives
4. RM ruby-em-redis, ruby-em-synchrony, ruby-bacon

I'm willing to help with the effort if accepted.

[halted]: https://github.com/leahneukirchen/bacon/issues/32

-- 
Sdrager,
Blair Noctis

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: OpenPGP_signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 228 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
URL: <http://alioth-lists.debian.net/pipermail/pkg-rust-maintainers/attachments/20250313/2f67c060/attachment.sig>