Bug#860955: poppler: please package new upstream version 0.54.0 as soon as possible

[Francesco Poli (wintermute)]

Source: poppler
Version: 0.48.0-2
Severity: wishlist

Hello poppler Debian package maintainers!

A new upstream version has just been released (0.54.0).

This new version includes (among other things) a patch that I
contributed to expose the PlayMode of a movie via the glib API.
See the upstream [bug], for more details.

[bug]: <https://bugs.freedesktop.org/show_bug.cgi?id=99625>

This new property will be useful for poppler-glib based PDF viewers
capable of playing back movies (such as pdfpc, that is to say,
PDF Presenter Console).
Having this new poppler upstream version packaged in Debian
would be highly useful: the Vala bindings could be updated, and
then pdf-presenter-console could take advantage of the new
API.

So, please, pretty please, package the new upstream version
as soon as possible.
I am aware that Debian stretch is fully frozen and that
poppler/0.54.0-x won't make it to enter stretch, but having
this new upstream version in unstable (or, at least, in
experimental) would be highly appreciated anyway!

Please let me know, thanks a lot for your time!
Bye.

[Pino Toscano]

retitle 860955 poppler: please package new upstream version
thanks

Hi,

Post by Francesco Poli (wintermute)
So, please, pretty please, package the new upstream version
as soon as possible.
I am aware that Debian stretch is fully frozen and that
poppler/0.54.0-x won't make it to enter stretch

These are enough reasons to not rush anything right now.

Post by Francesco Poli (wintermute)
but having
this new upstream version in unstable (or, at least, in
experimental) would be highly appreciated anyway!

Upload it in unstable, knowing it would not make it into testing
anyway, would only make fixing bugs in testing way more complicated
(since they would require special uploads to testing-proposed-update,
which has a way smaller surface of testers than unstable).

Uploading it to experimental would be possible. OTOH, since in almost
every version of poppler the libpoppler library has a bumped SONAME,
this would require me building and uploading binaries on my own, and
wait for NEW processing. I don't fancy doing this every month or so
(the current release frequency of poppler), so I do not upload every
version even in experimental, no matter the state of the release.

So, unless some other software in experimental requires a new version
(where "requires" means "cannot be even build, not even with few
features disabled"), I will not upload new versions of poppler until
I know I can start a transition in unstable (so surely after testing
will be opened again after the Stretch release).

If Debian had some PPA/Bikeshed system implemented I would use it,
but until then...

[Francesco Poli]

On Sat, 22 Apr 2017 17:56:19 +0200 Pino Toscano wrote:

[...]
[...]

Post by Pino Toscano

Post by Francesco Poli (wintermute)
but having
this new upstream version in unstable (or, at least, in
experimental) would be highly appreciated anyway!

Upload it in unstable, knowing it would not make it into testing
anyway, would only make fixing bugs in testing way more complicated
(since they would require special uploads to testing-proposed-update,
which has a way smaller surface of testers than unstable).

I am aware of this: it's exactly the reason why I suggested to at least
use experimental...

Post by Pino Toscano
Uploading it to experimental would be possible. OTOH, since in almost
every version of poppler the libpoppler library has a bumped SONAME,
this would require me building and uploading binaries on my own, and
wait for NEW processing.

Please excuse my ignorance: wouldn't this be the same processing
required for a hypothetical upload to unstable?
I mean: you should be used to this procedure...

Post by Pino Toscano
I don't fancy doing this every month or so
(the current release frequency of poppler), so I do not upload every
version even in experimental, no matter the state of the release.

That's fully understandable! If an upload had been made one month ago,
I wouldn't have asked for another upload now!

But here we are talking about version 0.54.0, while unstable still has
version 0.48.0, uploaded some 6 months ago...

Post by Pino Toscano
So, unless some other software in experimental requires a new version
(where "requires" means "cannot be even build, not even with few
features disabled"), I will not upload new versions of poppler until
I know I can start a transition in unstable (so surely after testing
will be opened again after the Stretch release).
If Debian had some PPA/Bikeshed system implemented I would use it,
but until then...

I am not sure I understand why you would upload to a PPA repository,
but not to experimental. Wouldn't the amount of required work be
similar?

[Pino Toscano]

Post by Francesco Poli
[...]
[...]

Post by Pino Toscano

Post by Francesco Poli (wintermute)
but having
this new upstream version in unstable (or, at least, in
experimental) would be highly appreciated anyway!

Upload it in unstable, knowing it would not make it into testing
anyway, would only make fixing bugs in testing way more complicated
(since they would require special uploads to testing-proposed-update,
which has a way smaller surface of testers than unstable).

I am aware of this: it's exactly the reason why I suggested to at least
use experimental...

Post by Pino Toscano
Uploading it to experimental would be possible. OTOH, since in almost
every version of poppler the libpoppler library has a bumped SONAME,
this would require me building and uploading binaries on my own, and
wait for NEW processing.

Please excuse my ignorance: wouldn't this be the same processing
required for a hypothetical upload to unstable?

Yes,

Post by Francesco Poli
I mean: you should be used to this procedure...

This does not mean I like it, nor I want to unnecessarly go through it.

Post by Francesco Poli

Post by Pino Toscano
I don't fancy doing this every month or so
(the current release frequency of poppler), so I do not upload every
version even in experimental, no matter the state of the release.

That's fully understandable! If an upload had been made one month ago,
I wouldn't have asked for another upload now!

I don't see what would have changed then: the feature you referred to
when opening this bug was committed less than a month ago upstream,
and 0.54.0 (released few days ago) is the first version providing it.
So even if experimental had 0.53.0, it wouldn't be usable for your
needs.

Post by Francesco Poli
But here we are talking about version 0.54.0, while unstable still has
version 0.48.0, uploaded some 6 months ago...

Version 0.48.0 was the last version before the freeze, when it was the
last possibility for doing a transition.

Post by Francesco Poli

Post by Pino Toscano
So, unless some other software in experimental requires a new version
(where "requires" means "cannot be even build, not even with few
features disabled"), I will not upload new versions of poppler until
I know I can start a transition in unstable (so surely after testing
will be opened again after the Stretch release).
If Debian had some PPA/Bikeshed system implemented I would use it,
but until then...

I am not sure I understand why you would upload to a PPA repository,
but not to experimental. Wouldn't the amount of required work be
similar?

Most probably there would not be a NEW queue, which right now is *the*
majority of the work needed when uploading a new ABI-breaking version
anywhere (usually to experimental, since it would require a transition,
so directly to unstable would be a no-no without release-team
approval).

[Francesco Poli]

[...]

Post by Pino Toscano

Post by Francesco Poli
That's fully understandable! If an upload had been made one month ago,
I wouldn't have asked for another upload now!

I don't see what would have changed then: the feature you referred to
when opening this bug was committed less than a month ago upstream,
and 0.54.0 (released few days ago) is the first version providing it.
So even if experimental had 0.53.0, it wouldn't be usable for your
needs.

In terms of final result, it would have basically changed nothing.
But I would have understood your refusal much more easily! ;-)

That's it.