On 3/11/23 20:48, Sascha Steinbiss wrote:
I agree. At the moment, though, I must admit I don't really need it anymore since the package that I originally needed it for as a dependency (vast) is no longer a priority for me. So for me there would be little motivation to keep it updated (and also only little insight into version progress and impact of changes).
I'm not super keen on it either, but it'd be good to have and we seem to be in agreement.
Moreover, it seems like upstream are doing major releases rather frequently [0] for which I have no idea of how potentially ABI breaking they are, but I expect them to be [1]. That means that there might be a danger of frequent transitions if we want to keep up-to-date with upstream's versions.
Agreed.
I have little experience with handling transitions, TBH,
I have been a part of many transitions, so I could probably help a bit at that front.
and I am not sure I can dedicate much time to that in the future.
Same, but my understanding is that someone will pick it up if it is important.
If that's OK then I wouldn't mind investing some more time to help make a current version in Debian possible, as long as update work can be shared across team members. I'd suggest we disable some features that would require packaging even more dependencies though (e.g. aws-sdk-cpp etc.).> What do you think?
Sounds good.
[0]https://arrow.apache.org/release/ [1] https://arrow.apache.org/docs/format/Versioning.html
Thanks, Nilesh
