[SRU] biber 2.4 to xenial

[Nick Andrik]

Please SRU biber 2.4 to xenial.

[Impact]:
========================
Current biber version in xenial (2.3) is too old for texlive-bibtex-extra version (2015.20160320-1), as described in Bug 1565842 , making biber uninstallable in xenial.
Backporting the most recent version (2.5) would still be a mistake since it requires a (>>= 2016) version of texlive-bibtex-extra.
The proper solution is to backport the 2.4-1 version as was seen in debian.
This has been verified to function properly in the aforementioned bug.

The bug has attracted a lot of attention with 68 people marked as affected as of June 13. It may meet the criteria for "High" severity since it "Has a severe impact on a small portion of Ubuntu users (estimated)" and "Prevents the application or any dependencies from functioning correctly at all".

[Changes]:
========================
2.4 (2016-03-01)
       * Misc bug fixes
       * There is now a 64-bit windows build built on windows 10
       * Biblatexml datasources now support sourcemapping and have a schema
         automatically generated from the datamodel. See new biber options
         'validate-bltxml' and 'no-bltxml-schema' in --help output.
       * New functionality in sourcemaps for creating new entries and
         looping over specified fields.
       * Sorting key used to sort names is now customisable. See
         \DeclareSortingNamekeyScheme in biblatex manual.
       * Support for Zotero RDF/XML and Endnote removed. These were
experimental and messy.
https://github.com/plk/biber/blob/dev/Changes

[Test Case]:
========================
Mark off items in the checklist [X] as you test them, but please leave the checklist so that backporters can quickly evaluate the state of testing.

The original 2.4-1 version from debian/snapshot can be found here:
http://snapshot.debian.org/package/biber/2.4-1/

The PPA build that was used for testing can be found here:
https://launchpad.net/~andrikos/+archive/ubuntu/ppa/+packages?field.name_filter=&field.status_filter=published&field.series_filter=xenial

Probably, you can test-build the backport in your PPA with backportpackage:
$ backportpackage -u ppa:andrikos/ppa -s xenial -d xenial biber

* xenial:
[X] Package builds without modification
[X] biber installs cleanly and runs

[Regression Potential]:
========
The following reverse-dependencies need to be tested against the new version of biber. For reverse-build-dependencies (-Indep), please test that the package still builds against the new biber. For reverse-dependencies, please test that the version of the package currently in the release still works with the new biber installed. Reverse- Recommends, Suggests, and Enhances don't need to be tested, and are listed for completeness-sake.

biber
-----
* science-typesetting
  [ ] xenial (Reverse-Recommends)
* texlive-bibtex-extra
  [X] xenial (Reverse-Breaks)
* med-typesetting
  [ ] xenial (Reverse-Suggests)

[Jeremy Bícha (jbicha)]

"Because of the inherent stability risks in backporting packages, users do not get backported packages without some explicit action on their part. This generally makes backports an inappropriate avenue for fixing bugs. If a package in an Ubuntu release has a bug, it should be fixed either through the Security Update or the Stable Release Update process, as appropriate." [1]

I'll argue that this should be fixed through the regular SRU process, which I think often ends up being faster than backports anyway.

[1] https://wiki.ubuntu.com/UbuntuBackports
[2] https://wiki.ubuntu.com/StableReleaseUpdates

[Nick Andrik (andrikos)]

Hi Jeremy,

I agree that SRU is even better than backport for this issue.
I guess I'll have to initiate the procedure for an SRU by updating the description and adding the appropriate tags, right?

Thanks,
Nick

[Nick Andrik (andrikos)]

Subscribing ubuntu-bugcontrol and requesting to nominate this bug for xenial release.

[Gianfranco Costamagna (costamagnagianfranco)]

Nominated for xenial, but looking at the debdiff I'm a little bit scared (200k LOC changed).
And I'm worried about:
+ * Incompatible biblatex/biber version is now a fatal error.

what does it mean? I don't want such regressions on stable releases.

[Alberto Salvia Novella (es20490446e)]

Since the bug is now nominated, I'm unsubscribing the Ubuntu Bug Control team from this report.

[Nick Andrik (andrikos)]

@LocutusOfBorg:
Actually this incompatibility is what renders current (2.3) biber version uninstallable in xenial, since it conflicts with current texlive-bibtex-extra (2015.20160320) version. Bug 1565842 mentioned in the description contains all the details about this.

@Alberto:
Thanks for the nomination, I'll try to find a sponsor now

[Nick Andrik (andrikos)]

Subscribing ubuntu-sponsors in order to request for a sponsorship of biber 2.4-1 into xenial-proposed .
This upload resolves Bug 1565842 which falls in the following SRU category, because current (2.3) version of biber is uninstallable:

Bugs which represent severe regressions from the previous release of Ubuntu. This includes packages which are totally unusable, like being uninstallable or crashing on startup.

The debdiff can be found in the PPA mentioned in the description. The extra (2.4-1~xenial~andrik1) changelog entry is to be removed of course.

Thanks in advance,
Nick

[Gianfranco Costamagna (costamagnagianfranco)]

mmm why don't have 2.5 instead?

[Jeremy Bícha (jbicha)]

LocutusOfBorg: Version 2.5 is incompatible with TexLive in Ubuntu 16.04 LTS:

https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/biber/+bug/1565842/comments/22

[Gianfranco Costamagna (costamagnagianfranco)]

Hi, I did sponsor a "backport" with some changelog changes.
I did use 2.4-1ubuntu1.16.04.1 as version, because it is already higher than xenial, and lower than yakkety.
Sorry for not using your ppa version, but the versioning was wrong, the description of the issue empty, and so on :)

thanks a lot for the useful contribution to Ubuntu!

[Gianfranco Costamagna (costamagnagianfranco)]

if you want you can go on irc freenode ubuntu-release chan, ask to reject the current version in new queue
https://launchpad.net/ubuntu/xenial/+queue?queue_state=1&queue_text=

and provide a changelog entry with your signature :)

something like this:
biber (2.4-1ubuntu1.16.04.1) xenial; urgency=medium

  * Upload the SRU to xenial, because current 2.3 is uninstallable
    with texlive-bibtex-extra (LP: #1589644)

 -- Gianfranco Costamagna <email address hidden> Mon, 13 Jun 2016 14:59:00 +0200

is what is currently in the queue

[Nick Andrik (andrikos)]

Hi Locutus,

Thanks for sponsoring the upload.
No need to have one with my own signature, what you uploaded is fine :)

After this version is released, we should also close Bug 1565842
We can do it manually, or include it in the changelog, your call.

Regards,
Nick

[Brian Murray (brian-murray)]

Hello Nick, or anyone else affected,

Accepted biber into xenial-proposed. The package will build now and be available at https://launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/biber/2.4-1ubuntu1.16.04.1 in a few hours, and then in the -proposed repository.

Please help us by testing this new package. See https://wiki.ubuntu.com/Testing/EnableProposed for documentation how to enable and use -proposed. Your feedback will aid us getting this update out to other Ubuntu users.

If this package fixes the bug for you, please add a comment to this bug, mentioning the version of the package you tested, and change the tag from verification-needed to verification-done. If it does not fix the bug for you, please add a comment stating that, and change the tag to verification-failed. In either case, details of your testing will help us make a better decision.

Further information regarding the verification process can be found at https://wiki.ubuntu.com/QATeam/PerformingSRUVerification . Thank you in advance!

[Gianfranco Costamagna (costamagnagianfranco)]

seems good so far

[Rodrigo G (rodrigog83)]

Installs and works!

~$ dpkg -s texlive-bibtex-extra biber | grep -e Package -e Version
Package: texlive-bibtex-extra
Version: 2015.20160320-1
Package: biber
Version: 2.4-1ubuntu1.16.04.1

[Frédéric Meynadier (frederic-meynadier-b)]

Works for me.

Same versions as above :
Package: texlive-bibtex-extra
Version: 2015.20160320-1
Package: biber
Version: 2.4-1ubuntu1.16.04.1

Many thanks to everyone involved in solving this annoying bug !

[lwhsiao (luke-w-hsiao)]

Also confirming that this works for me. Thanks for getting a fix out!

[Christian Godenschwager (qail)]

Works for me, too. Same versions as above.

[Peter A. Bigot (pab-u)]

Also confirmed; thanks.

Package: texlive-bibtex-extra
Version: 2015.20160320-1
Package: biber
Version: 2.4-1ubuntu1.16.04.1

[Launchpad Janitor (janitor)]

This bug was fixed in the package biber - 2.4-1ubuntu1.16.04.1

---------------
biber (2.4-1ubuntu1.16.04.1) xenial; urgency=medium

  * Upload the SRU to xenial, because current 2.3 is uninstallable
    with texlive-bibtex-extra (LP: #1589644)

 -- Gianfranco Costamagna <email address hidden> Mon, 13 Jun 2016 14:59:00 +0200

[Martin Pitt (pitti)]

The verification of the Stable Release Update for biber has completed successfully and the package has now been released to -updates. Subsequently, the Ubuntu Stable Release Updates Team is being unsubscribed and will not receive messages about this bug report. In the event that you encounter a regression using the package from -updates please report a new bug using ubuntu-bug and tag the bug report regression-update so we can easily find any regressions.

[Eduardo (ludentico)]

It might be fixed in the LTS 16.04, but it is still present in 16.10

[Nick Andrik (andrikos)]

Hi Eduardo,

What versions are you trying to install?
In a fresh installation of yakkety, both of biber and texlive-extra can be installed fine for me:

nikos@ubuntu:/> cat /etc/lsb-release
DISTRIB_ID=Ubuntu
DISTRIB_RELEASE=16.10
DISTRIB_CODENAME=yakkety
DISTRIB_DESCRIPTION="Ubuntu 16.10"
nikos@ubuntu:/> dpkg --list|grep -e biber -e texlive-bibtex-extra
ii biber 2.5-1 all Much-augmented BibTeX replacement for BibLaTeX users
ii texlive-bibtex-extra 2016.20160819-1 all TeX Live: BibTeX additional styles

It would help if you could post the error you are getting.

Kindest regards,
Nikos

[Eduardo (ludentico)]

Sorry. Biber is working as it must. My problem was that I hadn't removed the locally installed biber binary (which was the workaround in 16.04) after the dist-upgrade.