Hi Andrew,
On 09-06-2025 08:12, Andrew M.A. Cater wrote:
Debian bug 1049999 refers: it looks as if there is now no active
maintainer and so we probably can't keep this in for the lifecycle of Trixie.
That bug is rather long, do you have a summary? Why wouldn't we able to keep it? If that's true it should go now, instead of then. But on the other hand we have a whole lot of packages that have no active maintainer and that are behind upstream, so you need a stronger argument than that.
Paul
[Replying personally as well as on list to match your message sent to me]
On Mon, Jun 09, 2025 at 09:27:49AM +0200, Paul Gevers wrote:
Hi Andrew,
On 09-06-2025 08:12, Andrew M.A. Cater wrote:
Debian bug 1049999 refers: it looks as if there is now no active maintainer and so we probably can't keep this in for the lifecycle of Trixie.
That bug is rather long, do you have a summary? Why wouldn't we able to keep
it? If that's true it should go now, instead of then. But on the other hand we have a whole lot of packages that have no active maintainer and that are behind upstream, so you need a stronger argument than that.
Paul
Hashicorp chose a non-free licence in late 2023. At that point, one of the two Debian maintainers had already more or less given up maintaining Vagrant having been burned previously by maintaining Chef which also changed licence.
There then followed a period of waiting to see what happened. Lucas is unwilling to maintain this in non-free and has dropped the maintainership.
In the interim, Hashicorp has lost one of its founders and been bought for $6.4bn by IBM. We can maintain a *very old* free licensed copy maybe
but Lucas has already moved on, as has most of the rest of the world.
if anyone *really* want Vagrant to remain in Trixie - where we already do slightly differently from upstream in that they seem to prefer Virtualbox virtualisation - someone has to commit to another five years of support
of an old codebase with a near zero possibility of cooperation from upstream.
There are a few scripting packages that depend on Vagrant but if there's
no Ruby expert that wants to maintain this for the foreseeable future,
best it goes now, maybe.
Appreciating that this is late in the cycle, it's a lot easier to remove potentially problematic packages than to find someone to commit to maintain them.
On 09/06/25 at 18:17 +0000, Andrew M.A. Cater wrote:
[Replying personally as well as on list to match your message sent to me]
On Mon, Jun 09, 2025 at 09:27:49AM +0200, Paul Gevers wrote:
Hi Andrew,
On 09-06-2025 08:12, Andrew M.A. Cater wrote:
Debian bug 1049999 refers: it looks as if there is now no active
maintainer and so we probably can't keep this in for the lifecycle of
Trixie.
That bug is rather long, do you have a summary? Why wouldn't we able to keep
it? If that's true it should go now, instead of then. But on the other hand >>> we have a whole lot of packages that have no active maintainer and that are >>> behind upstream, so you need a stronger argument than that.
Paul
Hashicorp chose a non-free licence in late 2023. At that point, one of the >> two Debian maintainers had already more or less given up maintaining Vagrant >> having been burned previously by maintaining Chef which also changed licence.
There then followed a period of waiting to see what happened. Lucas is
unwilling to maintain this in non-free and has dropped the maintainership. >>
In the interim, Hashicorp has lost one of its founders and been bought for >> $6.4bn by IBM. We can maintain a *very old* free licensed copy maybe
but Lucas has already moved on, as has most of the rest of the world.
if anyone *really* want Vagrant to remain in Trixie - where we already do
slightly differently from upstream in that they seem to prefer Virtualbox
virtualisation - someone has to commit to another five years of support
of an old codebase with a near zero possibility of cooperation from upstream.
There are a few scripting packages that depend on Vagrant but if there's
no Ruby expert that wants to maintain this for the foreseeable future,
best it goes now, maybe.
Appreciating that this is late in the cycle, it's a lot easier to remove
potentially problematic packages than to find someone to commit to maintain >> them.
Hi Andrew,
In #1049999, Hans-Christoph Steiner <[email protected]> said he would take
over maintenance of the vagrant package in Debian.
Hans-Christoph, can you comment on whether that's still the case?
Lucas
I'm already committed to maintaining Vagrant in Debian because the F-Droid release build infrastructure is based on it for the foreseeable future. So doing this maintenance work in Debian will be less work for me than outside. That said, I do welcome help and support.
Hi,
On 26/06/25 at 08:33 +0200, Hans-Christoph Steiner wrote:
I'm already committed to maintaining Vagrant in Debian because the F-Droid >> release build infrastructure is based on it for the foreseeable future. So >> doing this maintenance work in Debian will be less work for me than outside. >> That said, I do welcome help and support.
I would appreciate it if you found the time to update the package to
reflect the fact that you are taking over as maintainer, before the
trixie release.
Lucas
| Sysop: | Keyop |
|---|---|
| Location: | Huddersfield, West Yorkshire, UK |
| Users: | 715 |
| Nodes: | 16 (2 / 14) |
| Uptime: | 41:45:28 |
| Calls: | 12,109 |
| Files: | 15,006 |
| Messages: | 6,518,410 |