[gdal-dev] About bug fix / patch release policy for older GDAL versions (setuptools >= 58.0 and GDAL <3.3 compatibility issues)

[snehal waychal]

Dear Even, dear Bas,


Thank you very much for the quick response and highlighting the
Debian/Ubuntu release policy aspects. And also about the link to the
ubuntugis-unstable PPA.


>* what you discuss here is all about the patch & backport policy of the *

>* Debian GDAL package. You can try to file a bug to Debian and point to *

>* the patch you'd want to see backported,*


But just to be sure I haven’t misunderstood your response or misrepresented
the original issue. The patch release I described is also needed in the
official releases of the GDAL **python** package. If I am not mistaken, the
GDAL team is taking care of source distributions on
https://pypi.org/project/GDAL/. I looked into released pypi versions and if
I am not mistaken there is no patch release for v3.2.2 with fix for
setuptools compatibility issue.


So, if we could make a new patch release of the* *python* package of GDAL*
and push the sdist package to pypi.org (something like 3.2.2.1, as I
described in the previous email) then that would also solve the issue.
Because as python developers, we install *python* packages via
pip/pipenv/poetry and those package managers would pick the new patch
release from pypi.org. (The GDAL library component libgdal-dev v3.2.2 will
still come from the debian system package repo and there is no issue with
that).


Hope I am not missing something obvious here. Please let me know.


Thank you again!


Regards,

Snehal

On Fri, Mar 25, 2022 at 12:29 PM Sebastiaan Couwenberg <sebastic at xs4all.nl>
wrote:

> On 3/25/22 12:07, Even Rouault wrote:
> > what you discuss here is all about the patch & backport policy of the
> > Debian GDAL package. You can try to file a bug to Debian and point to
> > the patch you'd want to see backported, but I can't promise if there
> > would be interest in their maintenance team to create an updated package
> > with it (my understanding is that even if we'd release a new 3.2.x patch
> > release, it wouldn't be packaged in LTS distributions. I'm not sure how
> > much of that is linked to Debian policy or availability of people that
> > do the work)
>
> Packages in Debian stable releases only get updates to fix bugs of
> severity important or higher [0]. GDAL patch releases also contain
> changes for lower severity issues, it's not worth the effort to vet all
> those changes. Any changes to packages in stable also risk introducing
> regressions which are highly undesirable in LTS releases known for their
> stability.
>
> People should be maintaining their own packaging repositories where they
> host packages with changes for their needs that cannot be easily
> upstreamed to the package in the distribution itself. Scratching your
> own itch was a corner stone of Open Source that people are seemingly
> forgetting or never having known about in the first place.
>
> [0]
>
> https://www.debian.org/doc/manuals/developers-reference/pkgs.en.html#special-case-uploads-to-the-stable-and-oldstable-distributions
>
> Kind Regards,
>
> Bas
>
> --
>   GPG Key ID: 4096R/6750F10AE88D4AF1
> Fingerprint: 8182 DE41 7056 408D 6146  50D1 6750 F10A E88D 4AF1
> _______________________________________________
> gdal-dev mailing list
> gdal-dev at lists.osgeo.org
> https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/gdal-dev
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.osgeo.org/pipermail/gdal-dev/attachments/20220325/8b975fdf/attachment-0001.html>