#1081217 Should fava be removed from unstable?

Package:
src:fava
Source:
src:fava
Submitter:
Helmut Grohne
Date:
2025-04-14 18:09:01 UTC
Severity:
normal
Tags:
#1081217#5
Date:
2024-09-09 11:07:07 UTC
From:
To:
Dear maintainer,

I suggest removing fava from Debian for the following reasons:
 * It accumulated one RC-bug:
   + #1031724: fava: frontend is not built from source; missing source
     Last modified: 1 year, 6 months

 * It is not part of bookworm or trixie and is not a key package.

This bug serves as a pre-removal warning. After one month, the bug will be
reassigned to ftp.debian.org to actually request removal of the package.

In case the package should be kept in unstable, please evaluate each of the
RC-bugs listed above.
 * If the bug is meant to permanently prevent the package from entering testing
   or a stable release, but this package should stay part of unstable, please
   add a usertag:

       user helmutg@debian.org
       usertags NNN + sidremove-ignore

 * If the bug no longer applies, please close it. If it is closed, check
   whether the fixed version is correct and adjust if necessary.

 * Is the bug really release-critical? If not, please downgrade.

 * If the bug still applies, please send a status update at least once a year.

Once all of the mentioned RC bugs have been acted upon in one way or another,
please close this bug.

In case the package should be removed from unstable, you may reassign this
bug report:

    Control: severity -1 normal
    Control: retitle -1 RM: fava -- RoM; rc-buggy
    Control: reassign -1 ftp.debian.org
    Control: affects -1 + src:fava

Alternatively, you may wait a month and have it reassigned.

In case you disagree with the above, please add a wontfix tag to this bug.

    Control: tags -1 + wontfix

Doing so will also prevent automatic reassignment.

Kind regards

A tool for automatically removing packages from unstable

This bug report has been automatically filed with little human intervention.
If the filing is unclear or in error, don't hesitate to contact
Helmut Grohne <helmut@subdivi.de> for assistance.

#1081217#10
Date:
2024-10-01 14:46:52 UTC
From:
To:
Hi,

thanks for asking about fava. There are currently two RC bugs, but I'd
like to keep this package in unstable very much. I use it, so I'll try
to fix the RC bugs.

In the meantime, please don't remove fava from unstable.

Regards,
Tobias

#1081217#17
Date:
2024-10-02 04:42:09 UTC
From:
To:
Hi Tobias,

Thank you for the reply and expressing the intention of keeping fava
alive. Rather than marking this bug wontfix, could you send a brief
status update about your plans on fixing #1031724 indicating partial
progress if any to that bug and then close this bug entirely?

I have intentions to remove packages that are being worked on.

Helmut

#1081217#22
Date:
2024-11-12 00:34:52 UTC
From:
To:
Coming from the buster and bullseye worlds here, I was sad and surprised
to find that python3-fava is not available in bookworm anymore.

I haven't started working on it yet, but I have every intention of getting
it working somehow since it is a critical part of my beancount flow.
So how can I help?

Should I be starting with 'apt-get source fava' on unstable, or
is there something newer I could test/work on?

Thanks,
- Chris

#1081217#27
Date:
2024-11-17 11:52:24 UTC
From:
To:
Am 13.11.24 um 14:09 schrieb Chris Frey:

Hi Chris,

I think it's sensible to include the bug report (I've re-added the
address), so other people can see what the progress is.

True, fava is missing quite a few sources which would need to be
packaged for Debian. At the very least, we need to include them in
"missing-sources". There is another bug report about this, see
https://bugs.debian.org/1031724.

To get fava back into the testing (and stable) distribution, the fastest
way would be to include the missing sources. So I think you should go
with that approach.

Regards,
Tobias

#1081217#32
Date:
2025-01-14 07:00:11 UTC
From:
To:
Hi Tobias,

Can you give an estimate as to when you want to work on fava? Your
statement of intention is now three months old. The bug about missing
sources is now unanswered for almost two years. Chris answered the FTBFS
bug two months ago, but it remains unfixed. At some point I think it is
better to pull the plug. Keep in mind that broken packages pose a cost
to QA teams. Keeping them is not for free. How about removing fava now
and reintroducing it once the rc bugs have a solution? Alternatively,
can you post an update on your plans for fixing the missing sources bug
to #1031724?

Helmut

#1081217#37
Date:
2025-01-15 00:20:33 UTC
From:
To:
I won't speak for Tobias, but I'm guessing he was waiting on more news
from me, and I got sick and dropped the ball.

What costs do broken packages incur?  Is it the FTBFS bugs?
If we get that fixed, will we be less of a burden?

Fava is a very useful package, and I hope to see it stay in Debian.

- Chris

#1081217#42
Date:
2025-01-15 06:12:43 UTC
From:
To:
Hi Chris,

Sorry to hear that.

It is not as boolean as it may look. There are very many QA teams in and
around Debian that perform archive-wide work and the mere presence
incurs a small cost on each of them. We generally consider that fine.
Practically speaking, the FTBFS is a pretty high cost to many of them.
It makes Lucas/Santiago (who do dedicated FTBFS tests) look into your
package. It also makes the reproducible team look into your package.
Many transitions (such as R³-default or /usr-move) use rebuilds to judge
their effects on the archive and a package that fails to build becomes
an unknown datapoint and extra effort.

A lot, but then the package still cannot migrate to testing. With rare
exceptions, we should only keep packages in unstable that are meant to
be part of stable. Unless there is some way of eventually fixing the
missing source bug, we should get rid of it. If all else fails, moving
fava to non-free could be an option (and there it could actually
migrate).

I hear that. Can we find a compromise? If the FTBFS gets fixed and some
kind of plan for fixing the missing source one (e.g. moving to non-free
or detailing how the source shall be included) is sent to the bug
report, I am convinced that the cost that fava incurs on Debian is
warranted. It was the combination of serious problems with an extended
period of lack of progress that made me suggest it for removal. If you
demonstrate progress, that argument goes away.

If the FTBFS fix is simple (no new upstream release), I offer sponsoring
the upload.

Helmut

#1081217#47
Date:
2025-04-14 17:58:27 UTC
From:
To:
Hey,

Le lundi 09 septembre 2024 à 13:07:07+0200, Helmut Grohne a écrit :

I will upload an update with many fixes.

We still need to address the missing sources if that is true.

Other than that, the main remaining issue is the missing svelte. I have
no quick win for that.

Bests,