Bug#1054574: adminer seems dead upstream, switch to adminerevo ?

[Rémi Letot]

Package: adminer
Severity: wishlist
X-Debbugs-Cc: hob...@poukram.net

Dear Maintainer,

according to git activity and comments in the issues, adminer seems dead
upstream.

Part of the community have forked it into adminerevo:

https://docs.adminerevo.org/

Would you consider packaging that instead of adminer ?

Thanks

-- System Information:
Debian Release: trixie/sid
APT prefers unstable
APT policy: (500, 'unstable')
Architecture: amd64 (x86_64)

Kernel: Linux 6.5.0-2-amd64 (SMP w/8 CPU threads; PREEMPT)
Kernel taint flags: TAINT_USER
Locale: LANG=fr_BE.UTF-8, LC_CTYPE=fr_BE.UTF-8 (charmap=UTF-8), LANGUAGE=fr_BE:fr
Shell: /bin/sh linked to /usr/bin/dash
Init: systemd (via /run/systemd/system)
LSM: AppArmor: enabled

Versions of packages adminer depends on:
pn libapache2-mod-php | php-cgi | php-fpm | php <none>
pn php-mysql | php-sqlite3 | php-pgsql <none>

Versions of packages adminer recommends:
pn apache2 | httpd <none>
ii php-cli 2:8.2+93
pn php-mysql <none>
pn php-pgsql <none>
pn php-sqlite3 <none>
ii php8.2-cli [php-cli] 8.2.10-2

Versions of packages adminer suggests:
ii sqlite3 3.43.2-1

[Alexandre Rossi]

Hi,

> according to git activity and comments in the issues, adminer seems dead
> upstream.
>
> Part of the community have forked it into adminerevo:
>
> https://docs.adminerevo.org/
>
> Would you consider packaging that instead of adminer ?

Yes, I'm thinking about it and I'm wondering on the strategy regarding
upgrades.

Options are:

1) new package src:adminerevo providing adminer and removal of src:adminer

Advantages : explicit branding

2) src:adminer using adminerevo source and building adminer pkg

Advantages : easy upgrade path (no Provides:, Conflicts:, no conffile
moving around in postinst)

3) src:adminer using adminerevo source and building adminerevo pkg

Advantages : explicit branding for binary package and easier
going back if src:adminer ever comes back alive

Maybe Chris can advise here.

Thanks,

Alex

[Chris Lamb]

Hi Alexandre,

> 1) new package src:adminerevo providing adminer and removal of src:adminer
>
> Advantages : explicit branding
>
> 2) src:adminer using adminerevo source and building adminer pkg
>
> Advantages : easy upgrade path (no Provides:, Conflicts:, no conffile
> moving around in postinst)
>
> 3) src:adminer using adminerevo source and building adminerevo pkg
>
> Advantages : explicit branding for binary package and easier
> going back if src:adminer ever comes back alive

Hmm. Unfortunately I'm a little bit out of the loop with adminer
stuff so I won't be able to provide anything close to reliable
guidance.

However, I'm a little hesitant re. using the existing src:adminer with
the adminerevo source (ie. #2 and #3) on philosophical/aesthetic
grounds. It just feels "right" to have a different source package for
that.

Perhaps consider raising this on debian-devel for clarification,
otherwise I'd go with #1.


Regards,

--
,''`.
: :' : Chris Lamb
`. `'` la...@debian.org 🍥 chris-lamb.co.uk
`-

[Alexandre Rossi]

Hi,

Status update: the work is done.

src:adminerevo and packaged dependency are awaiting sponsorship.

https://mentors.debian.net/package/libjs-jush/
https://mentors.debian.net/package/adminerevo/

Thanks,

Alex