Hi, I've released a new upstream version of protobuf-c that fixes the FTBFS issue with protobuf 3.6, which fixes #900621. I will upload it to unstable shortly.
László Böszörményi (GCS) wrote: > On Thu, Jul 12, 2018 at 10:14 AM Pirate Praveen > <prav...@onenetbeyond.org> wrote: > > On Fri, 6 Jul 2018 10:55:03 +0200 > > =?UTF-8?B?TMOhc3psw7MgQsO2c3rDtnJtw6lueWkgKEdDUyk=?= <g...@debian.org> > > wrote: > > > The most problematic point is the protobuf-c dependency package. It > > > was developed (and packaged) by one of us (an other DD), Robert S. > > > Edmonds. It is the most complete C language implementation of Protocol > > > Buffers. While it has a newer upstream release in Git than the > > > packaged version, it's still not compatible with protobuf 3.6.0.1 > > > which is in experimental. > [...] > > What do you think about providing protobuf3.0 in parallel to updating > > protobuf to 3.6? That way we can move ahead with gitlab and provide more > > time for either updating protobuf-c or porting packages to protobluff. > > We can drop protobuf3.0 when protobuf-c issue is resolved. > Actually I would like to investigate every possibility. > 1) Check the list of protobuf-c main contributors[1] if any of them > can / want to continue its development. > 2) Try to update protobuf-c for version 3.6 of protobuf, but I can't > be its upstream developer on the long run. > 3) Patch protobuf-c to use the implementation of scoped_array in Boost. > 4) At least check the required porting needs of dependencies to > protobluff. Ask their maintainers if they want / can do the porting. > Maybe they know other alternatives. > > If these fail and RMs ACK to carry two versions of protobuf then of > course, do it. Emilio? > How quick do you need to solve this GitLab update? I guess, quick. -- Robert Edmonds edmo...@debian.org
