[pkg-uWSGI-devel] [elbrus at debian.org: Re: Bug#1106212: unblock: uwsgi/2.0.29-1]

[Jonas Smedegaard]

Quoting Jonas Smedegaard (2025-06-03 10:02:11)
> Quoting Alexandre Rossi (2025-06-03 09:09:17)
> > ----- Message transf�r� de Paul Gevers <elbrus at debian.org> -----
> > 
> > Date: Fri, 30 May 2025 12:33:44 +0200
> > From: Paul Gevers <elbrus at debian.org>
> > To: Alexandre Rossi <niol at zincube.net>, 1106212-done at bugs.debian.org
> > Subject: Re: Bug#1106212: unblock: uwsgi/2.0.29-1
> > User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
> > 
> > Hi,
> > 
> > On 21-05-2025 12:10, Alexandre Rossi wrote:
> > > The new 2.0.29 upstream version diff seems big. However, this is because 8
> > > patches were upstreamed. Attached is the source diff with patches applied
> > > and ignoring whitespace changes.
> > 
> > 
> > This is still ridiculous to review:
> >  95 files changed, 1554 insertions(+), 2215 deletions(-)
> > 
> > Let's keep the version we have in trixie in trixie and the version we have in
> > unstable in unstable and hope we don't run into issues.
> 
> What I find ridiculous is that the *only* reason that the release team
> scrutinizes this, is that the upstream single-source project has been
> artificially split into multiple Debian source package for one reason
> only: To ease concurrent migrations of other large packaging projects
> like Perl and Python3.
> 
> Without that artifical split, this new upstream bugfix-only release of
> uwsgi would have involved zero package dependencies flagged as warning
> signs for the release team, and also (unless I am mistaken and uwsgi for
> some reason is a core or essential package now) the release team would
> not even be bothered about the change because the package was uploaded
> before the freeze of regular packages.
> 
> The uwsgi seemingly has wasted a lot of time in restructuring the
> package, only to effectively bothering the release team more (not less)
> and get punished for an update that from the outside would have been
> business as usual.

Just to avoid a potential for doubt: I am talking about the *situation*
above, and in no way find any *persons* or *teams* ridiculous.

This current situation seems to clearly demonstrate, that the release
team favors minimal patches over minimal transition complexities, and I
think that we should move back to packaging uwsgi as a single source
package immediately after the next release of Debian, pointing to this
bugreport when anyone again suggests¹ that uwsgi raises complexity of
packaging.

To repeat: The "ridiculous" amount of review would not require a review
if uwsgi was packaged as a single source package depending on several
major library ecosystems, including perl, python3, java, lua and ruby.

 - Jonas

¹ Last time the concern about uwsgi causing migration complexities was
raised, it was sadly done discretely, and an encouragement to repost as
a bugreport was met with silence).

-- 
 * Jonas Smedegaard - idealist & Internet-arkitekt
 * Tlf.: +45 40843136  Website: http://dr.jones.dk/
 * Sponsorship: https://ko-fi.com/drjones

 [x] quote me freely  [ ] ask before reusing  [ ] keep private
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 931 bytes
Desc: signature
URL: <http://alioth-lists.debian.net/pipermail/pkg-uwsgi-devel/attachments/20250610/b5f96223/attachment.sig>