[BPO] gramps/5.1.5-1 from jammy

[Ross Gammon]

[Impact]

 * Gramps 5.1.5 inludes many bug fixes and improved translations since 5.1.4. The relevant parts of the upstream changes list follows:
- Update translations: de, pl, sv, zh_CN.
- Strange behavior for the scrollbar in the bottombar. Fixes #12438.
- Fix place object element order in DTD and RNG schemas. Element placeobj content does not follow the DTD and RNG, expecting (ptitle? , pname+). Fixes #12500.
- Solve InterpolationSyntaxError if "%" in a string. The grampletpane module saves data in a config file for all the gramplets added in the dashboard. The python configparser module doesn't like if we have a "%" character in a string. Fixes #12423.
- '<' not supported between 2 instances of IndexMark. Fixes #12467.
- Fix negative Span when dates are not Gregorian. Fixes #12525.
- Incorrect grouping if no ma/patronymic surname.
- Group As override is ignored for ma/patronymic surnames. Fixes #12395.
- Add comments for the lat-lon field of editplace.
- Place editor, lat and long text are swapped. Fixes #12374.
- Fix Statusbar progress being shown before use. Fixes #12373.
- Fix exception when removing a group name in Sqlite db when group name is already missing. Fixes #12367.
- Fix error when trying to close name editor during long name group mapping view rebuild. Fixes #12328.
- OsmGpsMap-CRITICAL: Map source setup called twice Fixes #12352.
- Fix probably alive function unit test.

[Scope]

 * Gramps 5.1.5 from Jammy will be backported to Impish and Focal.

[Other Info]

 * I will be using the backport in Impish personally, and have a Focal installation for testing as well.

[Ross Gammon (rosco2)]

Packages build fine in my backports testing ppa (both impish & focal).

[Ross Gammon (rosco2)]

https://launchpad.net/~rosco2/+archive/ubuntu/backports

[Ross Gammon (rosco2)]

Gramps 5.1.5 installs and runs fine in Impish.

[Ross Gammon (rosco2)]

It also installs and runs fine in Focal.

[Dan Streetman (ddstreet)]

It's slightly concerning that -backports may be getting used here just for fixes? The concern is that bug fixes should be done as SRU so that everyone gets the bug fixes. The backports pocket generally should be limited to mainly pulling new features/functionality back; stuff that would be inappropriate for SRU.

I do understand that the SRU process is more involved and more difficult, but that's by design as SRUs need to be handled more carefully than BPOs, for obvious reasons. Can you clarify if you plan to SRU the bug fixes listed, or can you clarify which of them aren't appropriate for SRU (and why)?

[Dan Streetman (ddstreet)]

I just realized I probably misunderstood, as this is fixing bugs in the *previous* backport for this, which (if that's the case) is totally fine to backport as-is.

Can you just clarify if that's correct, and also if any of this backport, or the last backport, fixes bugs in the official focal version, that should be SRUed?

[Ross Gammon (rosco2)]

Hi Dan,

I am the maintainer of Gramps in Debian.

I try to ensure that the latest upstream release of Gramps is available in all the currently supported releases of Debian and Ubuntu that I am easily able to test. And if requested, I would backport to older supported releases (if I had support to test them).

Currently I am backporting to Debian Stable Backports, Ubuntu Impish & Focal.

Sometimes the releases include bug fixes, sometimes updated translations that didn't make it into the previous release, sometimes there will be new features.

I think forcing users to install deb files for the latest release, downloaded from the upstream project, or to try and install from source is doing a disservice to our users. And it gives me the occasional confusing bug report to deal with, or query on the upstream mailing list :-)

People happy with the version of Gramps in the original Debian/Ubuntu release can stick with that. It appears to be working fine.

If I receive a critical bug report with that version, then I will do a stable-update (for Debian), or an SRU (for Ubuntu). I am not aware that any of the bug fixes in 5.1.5 are critical, and deserving of an SRU.

Sorry for not making clear my intentions in the bug description.

[Dan Streetman (ddstreet)]

> Sorry for not making clear my intentions in the bug description.

No problem, it was my misunderstanding, and sorry for the confusion.