Debian Bug report logs - #657288
transition: gdcm

Package: release.debian.org; Maintainer for release.debian.org is Debian Release Team <debian-release@lists.debian.org>;

Reported by: Mathieu Malaterre <mathieu.malaterre@gmail.com>

Date: Wed, 25 Jan 2012 10:18:02 UTC

Severity: normal

Done: Cyril Brulebois <kibi@debian.org>

Bug is archived. No further changes may be made.

Toggle useless messages

View this report as an mbox folder, status mbox, maintainer mbox


Report forwarded to debian-bugs-dist@lists.debian.org, Debian Release Team <debian-release@lists.debian.org>:
Bug#657288; Package release.debian.org. (Wed, 25 Jan 2012 10:18:06 GMT) Full text and rfc822 format available.

Acknowledgement sent to Mathieu Malaterre <mathieu.malaterre@gmail.com>:
New Bug report received and forwarded. Copy sent to Debian Release Team <debian-release@lists.debian.org>. (Wed, 25 Jan 2012 10:18:07 GMT) Full text and rfc822 format available.

Message #5 received at submit@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox):

From: Mathieu Malaterre <mathieu.malaterre@gmail.com>
To: Debian Bug Tracking System <submit@bugs.debian.org>
Subject: transition: gdcm
Date: Wed, 25 Jan 2012 11:13:55 +0100
Package: release.debian.org
Severity: normal
User: release.debian.org@packages.debian.org
Usertags: transition


GDCM 2.2.0 introduces a new ABI, as seen on #655783 and al.
Since API (whatever that means for C++) is preserved, would it be a good time to
- move gdcm 2.2.0 from experimental to unstable
- binNMU insighttoolkit

igstk is not using gdcm API and thus does not required a rebuild

Thanks

-- System Information:
Debian Release: 6.0.1
  APT prefers stable-updates
  APT policy: (500, 'stable-updates'), (500, 'stable'), (200, 'testing'), (100, 'unstable')
Architecture: amd64 (x86_64)

Kernel: Linux 2.6.32-5-amd64 (SMP w/2 CPU cores)
Locale: LANG=en_US.utf8, LC_CTYPE=en_US.utf8 (charmap=UTF-8)
Shell: /bin/sh linked to /bin/dash




Information forwarded to debian-bugs-dist@lists.debian.org, Debian Release Team <debian-release@lists.debian.org>:
Bug#657288; Package release.debian.org. (Thu, 02 Feb 2012 20:15:03 GMT) Full text and rfc822 format available.

Acknowledgement sent to "Adam D. Barratt" <adam@adam-barratt.org.uk>:
Extra info received and forwarded to list. Copy sent to Debian Release Team <debian-release@lists.debian.org>. (Thu, 02 Feb 2012 20:15:03 GMT) Full text and rfc822 format available.

Message #10 received at 657288@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox):

From: "Adam D. Barratt" <adam@adam-barratt.org.uk>
To: Mathieu Malaterre <mathieu.malaterre@gmail.com>, 657288@bugs.debian.org
Subject: Re: Bug#657288: transition: gdcm
Date: Thu, 02 Feb 2012 20:13:15 +0000
tags 657288 + pending
thanks

On Wed, 2012-01-25 at 11:13 +0100, Mathieu Malaterre wrote:
> GDCM 2.2.0 introduces a new ABI, as seen on #655783 and al.
> Since API (whatever that means for C++) is preserved, would it be a good time to
> - move gdcm 2.2.0 from experimental to unstable

Apparently the lack of an explicit "no" - having waited less than a week
- was taken as an implicit "yes".  That's unfortunate, given that it
means that the gdcm transition is now tied together with the mono
transition which we were very close to finishing.

I'm hoping that we can resolve that without either having to delay mono
for a while longer or asking for a temporary reversion to gdcm 2.0.  In
the meantime, if you wouldn't mind holding off on further uploads of
gdcm unless any serious issues arise that would be appreciated.

Regards,

Adam





Added tag(s) pending. Request was from "Adam D. Barratt" <adam@adam-barratt.org.uk> to control@bugs.debian.org. (Thu, 02 Feb 2012 20:15:12 GMT) Full text and rfc822 format available.

Information forwarded to debian-bugs-dist@lists.debian.org, Debian Release Team <debian-release@lists.debian.org>:
Bug#657288; Package release.debian.org. (Thu, 02 Feb 2012 20:57:03 GMT) Full text and rfc822 format available.

Acknowledgement sent to Mathieu Malaterre <mathieu.malaterre@gmail.com>:
Extra info received and forwarded to list. Copy sent to Debian Release Team <debian-release@lists.debian.org>. (Thu, 02 Feb 2012 20:57:03 GMT) Full text and rfc822 format available.

Message #17 received at 657288@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox):

From: Mathieu Malaterre <mathieu.malaterre@gmail.com>
To: "Adam D. Barratt" <adam@adam-barratt.org.uk>
Cc: 657288@bugs.debian.org
Subject: Re: Bug#657288: transition: gdcm
Date: Thu, 2 Feb 2012 21:55:44 +0100
Hi Adam,

On Thu, Feb 2, 2012 at 9:13 PM, Adam D. Barratt
<adam@adam-barratt.org.uk> wrote:
> On Wed, 2012-01-25 at 11:13 +0100, Mathieu Malaterre wrote:
>> GDCM 2.2.0 introduces a new ABI, as seen on #655783 and al.
>> Since API (whatever that means for C++) is preserved, would it be a good time to
>> - move gdcm 2.2.0 from experimental to unstable
>
> Apparently the lack of an explicit "no" - having waited less than a week
> - was taken as an implicit "yes".  That's unfortunate, given that it
> means that the gdcm transition is now tied together with the mono
> transition which we were very close to finishing.

I am truly sorry for any mess I am responsible for.

> I'm hoping that we can resolve that without either having to delay mono
> for a while longer or asking for a temporary reversion to gdcm 2.0.  In
> the meantime, if you wouldn't mind holding off on further uploads of
> gdcm unless any serious issues arise that would be appreciated.

I completely understand your point and I will not upload any new gdcm.
In any case if you decide to revert to gdcm 2.0 watch very carefully
for #657288 since it introduce a change in the API without any SONAME
bump.

I initially made the very first upload of gdcm 2.2 because of #657779,
which I thought would help in the mono transition. I choose to upload
directly 2.2.0 (vs a gdcm 2.0.19) since it clearly state the SONAME
bump and I assume this would make the life of everybody else much
easier. In particular I assumed having gdcm 2.2 would help the ITK4
transition, also debated on debian-release [1].

Anyway thanks for taking the time to answer my request for gdcm transition.

[1] http://lists.debian.org/debian-release/2012/01/msg00650.html

-- 
Mathieu




Information forwarded to debian-bugs-dist@lists.debian.org, Debian Release Team <debian-release@lists.debian.org>:
Bug#657288; Package release.debian.org. (Fri, 03 Feb 2012 13:33:07 GMT) Full text and rfc822 format available.

Acknowledgement sent to "Adam D. Barratt" <adam@adam-barratt.org.uk>:
Extra info received and forwarded to list. Copy sent to Debian Release Team <debian-release@lists.debian.org>. (Fri, 03 Feb 2012 13:33:07 GMT) Full text and rfc822 format available.

Message #22 received at 657288@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox):

From: "Adam D. Barratt" <adam@adam-barratt.org.uk>
To: Mathieu Malaterre <mathieu.malaterre@gmail.com>
Cc: <657288@bugs.debian.org>
Subject: Re: Bug#657288: transition: gdcm
Date: Fri, 03 Feb 2012 13:29:10 +0000
On 02.02.2012 20:55, Mathieu Malaterre wrote:
> On Thu, Feb 2, 2012 at 9:13 PM, Adam D. Barratt
> <adam@adam-barratt.org.uk> wrote:
>> On Wed, 2012-01-25 at 11:13 +0100, Mathieu Malaterre wrote:
>>> GDCM 2.2.0 introduces a new ABI, as seen on #655783 and al.
>>> Since API (whatever that means for C++) is preserved, would it be a 
>>> good time to
>>> - move gdcm 2.2.0 from experimental to unstable
>>
>> Apparently the lack of an explicit "no" - having waited less than a 
>> week
>> - was taken as an implicit "yes".  That's unfortunate, given that it
>> means that the gdcm transition is now tied together with the mono
>> transition which we were very close to finishing.
[...]
> I completely understand your point and I will not upload any new 
> gdcm.
> In any case if you decide to revert to gdcm 2.0 watch very carefully
> for #657288 since it introduce a change in the API without any SONAME
> bump.

Thanks.  I suspect that's not the bug number you intended to reference 
though.

> I initially made the very first upload of gdcm 2.2 because of 
> #657779,
> which I thought would help in the mono transition.

Fixing the bug helped, yes.  The SONAME bump not so much. :-)

> I choose to upload
> directly 2.2.0 (vs a gdcm 2.0.19) since it clearly state the SONAME
> bump and I assume this would make the life of everybody else much
> easier. In particular I assumed having gdcm 2.2 would help the ITK4
> transition, also debated on debian-release [1].

It may make ITK4 easier; we'll see.

What it looks like we'll end up doing is pushing the new gdcm in to 
testing much earlier than we normally would, to get the mono transition 
finished; britney allows us to keep the shared libraries for both 2.0 
and 2.2 in testing while we sort out the reverse-dependencies.  We'll 
then look at finishing off the gdcm transition.

Regards,

Adam




Information forwarded to debian-bugs-dist@lists.debian.org, Debian Release Team <debian-release@lists.debian.org>:
Bug#657288; Package release.debian.org. (Sat, 04 Feb 2012 20:15:03 GMT) Full text and rfc822 format available.

Acknowledgement sent to "Adam D. Barratt" <adam@adam-barratt.org.uk>:
Extra info received and forwarded to list. Copy sent to Debian Release Team <debian-release@lists.debian.org>. (Sat, 04 Feb 2012 20:15:03 GMT) Full text and rfc822 format available.

Message #27 received at 657288@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox):

From: "Adam D. Barratt" <adam@adam-barratt.org.uk>
To: Mathieu Malaterre <mathieu.malaterre@gmail.com>, 657288@bugs.debian.org
Subject: Re: Bug#657288: transition: gdcm
Date: Sat, 04 Feb 2012 20:10:17 +0000
On Wed, 2012-01-25 at 11:13 +0100, Mathieu Malaterre wrote:
> GDCM 2.2.0 introduces a new ABI, as seen on #655783 and al.
> Since API (whatever that means for C++) is preserved, would it be a good time to
> - move gdcm 2.2.0 from experimental to unstable

We've covered that one already.  :-)

> - binNMU insighttoolkit

I've now scheduled that and will look at scheduling the other packages
(see http://release.debian.org/transitions/html/gdcm.html) once
insighttoolkit's done.

> igstk is not using gdcm API and thus does not required a rebuild

What about the other packages which appear to build-depend on gdcm but
not end up with a run-time dependency?  According to the tracker, that'd
be ants, itksnap and vtkedge.

Regards,

Adam





Information forwarded to debian-bugs-dist@lists.debian.org, Debian Release Team <debian-release@lists.debian.org>:
Bug#657288; Package release.debian.org. (Sun, 05 Feb 2012 20:15:05 GMT) Full text and rfc822 format available.

Acknowledgement sent to Mathieu Malaterre <mathieu.malaterre@gmail.com>:
Extra info received and forwarded to list. Copy sent to Debian Release Team <debian-release@lists.debian.org>. (Sun, 05 Feb 2012 20:15:05 GMT) Full text and rfc822 format available.

Message #32 received at 657288@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox):

From: Mathieu Malaterre <mathieu.malaterre@gmail.com>
To: "Adam D. Barratt" <adam@adam-barratt.org.uk>
Cc: 657288@bugs.debian.org
Subject: Re: Bug#657288: transition: gdcm
Date: Sun, 5 Feb 2012 21:11:51 +0100
On Sat, Feb 4, 2012 at 9:10 PM, Adam D. Barratt
<adam@adam-barratt.org.uk> wrote:
>> - binNMU insighttoolkit
>
> I've now scheduled that and will look at scheduling the other packages
> (see http://release.debian.org/transitions/html/gdcm.html) once
> insighttoolkit's done.

excellent !

>> igstk is not using gdcm API and thus does not required a rebuild
>
> What about the other packages which appear to build-depend on gdcm but
> not end up with a run-time dependency?  According to the tracker, that'd
> be ants, itksnap and vtkedge.

I did checked all of them from my sid/schroot and none links to
libgdcm* directly. They do not require a rebuild.

$ readelf -d /usr/lib/libvtkKWEWidgets.so
$ readelf -d /usr/bin/itksnap
$ readelf -d /usr/bin/ANTS

Using ldd I can see gdcm*.so.2.2 appears so this looks ok to me.

Thanks
-- 
Mathieu




Added blocking bug(s) of 657288: 658753 Request was from "Adam D. Barratt" <adam@adam-barratt.org.uk> to control@bugs.debian.org. (Sun, 05 Feb 2012 20:45:03 GMT) Full text and rfc822 format available.

Reply sent to Cyril Brulebois <kibi@debian.org>:
You have taken responsibility. (Tue, 14 Feb 2012 13:15:09 GMT) Full text and rfc822 format available.

Notification sent to Mathieu Malaterre <mathieu.malaterre@gmail.com>:
Bug acknowledged by developer. (Tue, 14 Feb 2012 13:15:10 GMT) Full text and rfc822 format available.

Message #39 received at 657288-done@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox):

From: Cyril Brulebois <kibi@debian.org>
To: Mathieu Malaterre <mathieu.malaterre@gmail.com>, 657288-done@bugs.debian.org
Subject: Re: Bug#657288: transition: gdcm
Date: Tue, 14 Feb 2012 14:07:45 +0100
[Message part 1 (text/plain, inline)]
Mathieu Malaterre <mathieu.malaterre@gmail.com> (25/01/2012):
> GDCM 2.2.0 introduces a new ABI, as seen on #655783 and al.  Since API
> (whatever that means for C++) is preserved, would it be a good time to
> - move gdcm 2.2.0 from experimental to unstable
> - binNMU insighttoolkit
> 
> igstk is not using gdcm API and thus does not required a rebuild

AFAICT: Everything's done, closing.

Mraw,
KiBi.
[signature.asc (application/pgp-signature, inline)]

Bug archived. Request was from Debbugs Internal Request <owner@bugs.debian.org> to internal_control@bugs.debian.org. (Wed, 14 Mar 2012 09:37:20 GMT) Full text and rfc822 format available.

Send a report that this bug log contains spam.


Debian bug tracking system administrator <owner@bugs.debian.org>. Last modified: Fri Apr 18 08:13:30 2014; Machine Name: buxtehude.debian.org

Debian Bug tracking system
Copyright (C) 1999 Darren O. Benham, 1997,2003 nCipher Corporation Ltd, 1994-97 Ian Jackson.