[Pkg-utopia-maintainers] Bug#905553: libdbus-glib-1-dev: install dbus-binding-tool into a Multi-Arch: foreign package

[Helmut Grohne]

Hi Simon,

On Mon, Aug 06, 2018 at 12:19:39PM +0100, Simon McVittie wrote:
> [ discussion on what deprecated means ]

Experience from python2 has shown that deprecation is difficult. You can
announce it early and still everyone ignores it. I even try to move
packages off deprecated technology where I can (e.g. xmkmf), but
converting dbus-glib users is beyond my skills and time budget. Sorry.

> not mean people have actually stopped using it, and does not mean that
> it can be removed from Debian in a finite time.

I think this is key. What I really want is a way forward in finite time.
For instance with qt4, there is a deadline (buster). So I don't bother
fixing qt4 packages and simply track the individual qt4 removal bugs.
Once they move to qt5, I'll notice immediately and try cross building
them. For dbus-glib, I waited for your mbf and nothing happened.
Presumably, the time is not ripe yet. That's ok.

If you see a different way forward, I'm all ears. Long term, the effort
is likely better spent at converting the remaining (many) users.

> dbus-glib already has a versioned Depends on a better D-Bus implementation
> (part of libglib2.0-0). Next time I do an upstream release I'm seriously
> tempted to add __attribute__((deprecated("use GDBus instead"))) to
> every symbol.

Sounds useful to me. It seems that very many downstreams are not fully
aware.

> If it's sufficiently important to you to justify a trip through NEW,
> then I'd prefer to do a MU fixing this and #873617 (there seems little
> reason to fix this one but not #873617). Thanks for the patch, I'll use
> it as a base.

That's not a boolean, but a non-trivial trade-off. When fixing
deprecated technology I consider:
 * How long does it take to get rid of it?
 * How many users does it have?
For dbus-glib the respective answers appear to be "long" and "many".
Having many users also means that failures due to dbus-glib shadow other
failures. I'm not that much after fixing this bug for its own sake, but
for getting a better picture of the remaining failures.

So yes, I have come to the conclusion that fixing this is worth the trip
through NEW. That's why I sat down, wrote the patch and kindly offered
the NMU, not as a threat, but as potential way forward. I gladly honour
your preference for doing a MU. I don't even have much urgency here, but
I know that a number of people use stable for cross building, so please
try to fix it in buster.

Thank you for your cooperation in a matter that doesn't look productive
to you.

Helmut