Bug#1009071: closed by matthias.geiger1...@tutanota.de ()
[sent again using X-Debbugs-Cc to circumvent SPF breakage] Hi Jeremy and Matthias, and others following along. Quoting Jeremy Bícha (2023-06-27 23:12:35) > I don't understand why you reopened this bug. The NMU was done for > Debian 12 and Testing. There is a new major release in Unstable that > doesn't suffer from the bug the NMU was designed to fix. (It has a > different bug but there is already an RC bug for it.) > > I don't see any action Maintainers can do here…except close this bug. > > Admittedly, the new release in Unstable happened today so maybe the > situation has changed after the bug was reopened. Three things makes this confusing to unpack, as I (now) see it: a) This bugreport simply tracks approving of an NMU b) Bugs track packages in Debian, not packaging code in salsa c) I have a tendency to write mysterious sentences Regarding a) I was indeed confusing this bug with another. Not with release-critical bug#1038242, however, but with an unreported wishlist bug of providing a newer release - which happens to be solved with the upload related to closing this bugreport. Reopening an NMU-approval bugreport is silly nitpicking and I am sorry for that. Regarding b) and how package maintainers can do better (disregarding this concrete case being a silly nitpicking issue not deserving any better), the problem is closing already when _pushing_ a package towards Debian. A bugreport tracks a *package* not package *maintainers*. A bug is not solved when package maintainers have done all they could to solve it, but instead when the package itself no longer contain the bug being tracked. What package maintainers did here was upload a package and close the related bugreport. What package maintainers could do better in future is to *embed* a bug closure within the packaging so that when the package actually enters Debian the bug gets closed. Such embedding is done by adding the magic string "Closes: bug#1009071" (or "closes: #1009071) in the changelog entry. Additionally, if package maintainers want to signal that they've done what they could and now only wait for machinery, they can tag the bugreport as "pending", e.g. with the following console command: bts tags 1009071 pending or by running the command `tagpending` from within the source package, which will scan latest changelog entry for pending bug closures to tag. Regarding c) I guess Matthias misread my cryptic message as saying "this bug is not fixed in Salsa" when what I intended to say was "this bugreport should not be closed already when the bug is fixed in salsa". I apologize for my weird unhelpful choice of words. All this said, the bug is now truly solved (since two days ago), and I hereby lose this bugreport. Kind regards, and thanks for upgrading ashpd, - Jonas -- * Jonas Smedegaard - idealist & Internet-arkitekt * Tlf.: +45 40843136 Website: http://dr.jones.dk/ * Sponsorship: https://ko-fi.com/drjones [x] quote me freely [ ] ask before reusing [ ] keep private signature.asc Description: signature
Bug#1009071: closed by matthias.geiger1...@tutanota.de ()
Hi Jeremy and Matthias, and others following along. Quoting Jeremy Bícha (2023-06-27 23:12:35) > I don't understand why you reopened this bug. The NMU was done for > Debian 12 and Testing. There is a new major release in Unstable that > doesn't suffer from the bug the NMU was designed to fix. (It has a > different bug but there is already an RC bug for it.) > > I don't see any action Maintainers can do here…except close this bug. > > Admittedly, the new release in Unstable happened today so maybe the > situation has changed after the bug was reopened. Three things makes this confusing to unpack, as I (now) see it: a) This bugreport simply tracks approving of an NMU b) Bugs track packages in Debian, not packaging code in salsa c) I have a tendency to write mysterious sentences Regarding a) I was indeed confusing this bug with another. Not with release-critical bug#1038242, however, but with an unreported wishlist bug of providing a newer release - which happens to be solved with the upload related to closing this bugreport. Reopening an NMU-approval bugreport is silly nitpicking and I am sorry for that. Regarding b) and how package maintainers can do better (disregarding this concrete case being a silly nitpicking issue not deserving any better), the problem is closing already when _pushing_ a package towards Debian. A bugreport tracks a *package* not package *maintainers*. A bug is not solved when package maintainers have done all they could to solve it, but instead when the package itself no longer contain the bug being tracked. What package maintainers did here was upload a package and close the related bugreport. What package maintainers could do better in future is to *embed* a bug closure within the packaging so that when the package actually enters Debian the bug gets closed. Such embedding is done by adding the magic string "Closes: bug#1009071" (or "closes: #1009071) in the changelog entry. Additionally, if package maintainers want to signal that they've done what they could and now only wait for machinery, they can tag the bugreport as "pending", e.g. with the following console command: bts tags 1009071 pending or by running the command `tagpending` from within the source package, which will scan latest changelog entry for pending bug closures to tag. Regarding c) I guess Matthias misread my cryptic message as saying "this bug is not fixed in Salsa" when what I intended to say was "this bugreport should not be closed already when the bug is fixed in salsa". I apologize for my weird unhelpful choice of words. All this said, the bug is now truly solved (since two days ago), and I hereby lose this bugreport. Kind regards, and thanks for upgrading ashpd, - Jonas -- * Jonas Smedegaard - idealist & Internet-arkitekt * Tlf.: +45 40843136 Website: http://dr.jones.dk/ * Sponsorship: https://ko-fi.com/drjones [x] quote me freely [ ] ask before reusing [ ] keep private signature.asc Description: signature
Bug#1009071: closed by matthias.geiger1...@tutanota.de ()
Jonas, I don't understand why you reopened this bug. The NMU was done for Debian 12 and Testing. There is a new major release in Unstable that doesn't suffer from the bug the NMU was designed to fix. (It has a different bug but there is already an RC bug for it.) I don't see any action Maintainers can do here…except close this bug. Admittedly, the new release in Unstable happened today so maybe the situation has changed after the bug was reopened. Thank you, Jeremy Bícha
Bug#1009071: nmu
Sure it is: https://salsa.debian.org/rust-team/debcargo-conf/-/commit/81914839c41a7ab99a910c1f90316e0a1c59d2af --- Matthias Geiger (werdahias) -BEGIN PGP PUBLIC KEY BLOCK- mQINBGJGNsQBEADCVylaCtYtBQW4NmDrZOIizSrVlv5ZJ5WJ128MAblWk3fRFPya Cs/klkTT58ehBSr61sXVP+NpkF7MWOBu2CNg66U40a/Eb+v4poxNaIjXKvQtf51S y5yGwmTc7IJg8HuohT7K3/pcsEt0jvYSwvvDFUIz5WdOR5RmB7WkDRGh8Zaior3z tzx6AKhx/aXmAc/i4BDavDxZeFC0d79H3S1+TvFsvhyIZXIFTB0sTzWreZZxSOjk Mz6xxgWGdc27lsbZbKU7N+c+GnWrRlTjimU1AfPLJQgehIejR9pSyZ2Y5BAqB7Qr f8Tvc8jc1kDx473sUUla6ELEuJMIISK1qam/B7buxZ1r/ngWRiQsqAHznm7OYk69 ttXBeHxS1b+HrcJMWfROkzsTuG6G//axMCb6x0MuyOgLXk87aDnDx1fPn62R+tq7 T4JvW51TSnlNNh75zA+8w3UzDHy2By0H6NSfiLerNnF7LGCXk7AiwQsaplrEjo/1 /4NraAqy1eO69SyozSiRuuA5KemlyPwJokpp2HMJX3cry2J7lV0+wnaaorQzz5Fi 7gRRlqXrOGwEcEG6i62VbIv2VW3Zy+qjaD3HRWXfKXXjpXske41Trv2qPI2/kGtJ TRWSWdTQ42oYOaEg/KUh0GnEoZerj50JC1qGmwElKYgd+2XQ8qR7uIB5qQARAQAB tDFNYXR0aGlhcyBHZWlnZXIgPG1hdHRoaWFzLmdlaWdlcjEwMjRAdHV0YW5vdGEu ZGU+iQJUBBMBCgA+FiEEwuGmy/3s5RGopBdtGL0QaztsVHUFAmJGNsQCGwMFCQPC ZwAFCwkIBwIGFQoJCAsCBBYCAwECHgECF4AACgkQGL0QaztsVHVMxQ/+M5JEQ5wk DDblHGUlK8IBnPM5peuDrMdQAsOQ5nSv90gl4z4HkRgomS70xMpvoS+g/8hPym4G PXpSFJsZWjFevACWMzZO84pqJhPaFnmjh3utkkiblNf8Wi350K+luAlRvT1FVD6i HM6kOxU0P9t9+PU38FH299oRw2qEqDw5Wx+Hrnp4gaGv1mssvAMiXeaaPGx4KSz8 sNXADHJDo78U6RGJM/rSng/8M7zd3c6E8MIH958mlWjUb8T10AZ/otH3nFSRIfds 5MdnnrsKAK3DMW4RanRWHPvTsICDDkuRvigd32waQRdZeA3dNbPxM6tKDL9GEH8Q AnkShJ7VmTXP9CV20vj15mleoeDMgqhX5KEOsc3DMnKcVqdb9CzHj6jNSFUverk1 bBNaJpIiWwtwjueR4Hgdof80AAgRin4YnWaOaPTSusrKyN8dCRVcRIbauVooWLil q2OrWftDVmmNciwoHr5/WDPNgkv9DAgY+DX8Y8LMWAkXgpB0KniiQaLzrW34zjnP ALTLTIvNid6YX8KOY6KhAVWfVdMC5j6GEGfbfyMLz63YPxA9Q1Af6oXS8MbdHyBw JV8ns2xm5fD2vZVw6JI1e8AMMDjH2fAqmH23MG0fN0zd2NUToHmvhX9APSzJIbET doFPn/mI/az4Oh24WHf3Ozr+XEDyWcyy1y+5Ag0EYkY2xAEQANL26Ixtq1QMUM+5 MHl2FK4foRODoKHe4ZzdOAumUBPJE/pxGVlVxCqzC+LUeFvA8LTYCt1B60yRveYR 4mmPTA7nAerG2m4aQPeIfzz6HXWkiu9mzgxqjhPxitiMR5f1du1rAWGPZxSkhdW6 fDWT4PkHoY78jbQXWYEnV85rwtZIZIduHGKWzyxln3qjrefmB04QkPJ2BDOsRTtD YeNddHAvcgZtyepqZka9lpowQTY6TXwM8uYArEa7Hll/4r9rcvkVQUxf8jqYpZ3v PLSzvvaDouH7WAg5nUaTeWAQdSq108rNRSTgScLZWjwmhFBA46RneRpij2OJ0lW4 QqFTlldjWXzgGj6u4nbXrSERGaPwyLGIkHoKbnTAm7791d/Y5UQImuPb1tIg5Pf7 OhtyWw3bstVDa5MvIUuGpi5yKPirhrtAfdZ3H2/HR814JuL2BYdjyCuR/Sj/lZTx +gJ0bm+Llr0KZDhjKMeWaqVqsD4bybgEe4d3zE4sj9GZ0tNUvXfPaRGY6tgh9sgT Iy28vnyYpFX+oSIZXRreDpfzyjDhvNbB+AFsPN5OXqaBpmu/378T5nRpUj/qbqEZ EsloCbAmgHfvIysQWYdJ+63S3ZqpbEQRa4Y7DeybaLi8xTMfdWa19T7vQY3mVWn5 ZooycK4fkbedu19+5l8zfhR7oWyBABEBAAGJAjwEGAEKACYWIQTC4abL/ezlEaik F20YvRBrO2xUdQUCYkY2xAIbDAUJA8JnAAAKCRAYvRBrO2xUdRuPD/4tdAf8nxsA upo5O99E4AS59OTXPQuVgt1U2Z7ssDvZ3O6qbZvIBWQ0NqnCsprCt71M6cWC2dkq WUs3oRRu4IzuB4LErcTr597k+iltJ60rhDL/hxSumToH6FSX1w8EWJVg3xgP4U39 HSx6QOlZ3bTgd9dS5S46jOptIYzX5wYkNzyMj1hbmTg0lVyMtWjqfCLNmF3EzGGC BLR3tMOxZURrxx8tL48iJlFyxJG3XahoyxDSNepo5HZ+AUnNq2TJPoPJQfb1/GB/ /LycKSXWgblyWuGRlgoCE1JcdwuRM5hI2xugZQrhgZaPUBch1MSoiIqwgR1A8NPL iypUPnwG4vEaVbMtem7OUghsx+fYwuGq0T7/ezjyVRv86U2gU1bmbxojct1AXSCT FCCR3Y8QAHV9o8U/eZ1XzcEZsXFd6siO5nEBl9HaTHh5gWDrk/molP85S7Y9JIBP wZygBjWOPCCkFlIuiPQlXsJezVu93ydz7uCNIJfHv30oVedcYHN1Wr7B/1j8wXMy wqW4Nw54yZ8zaJIo01Khym6cFFVXoAUZa+5QRvSmjnm1Go+ZwZA9i7zo/6LLSpeR 04+4a1Daysk0fTf+DscrxQbUBZX17e1n/EtLS8/pp+Xb/k1JK1iiNcdpfLJ7RNik GX00szhWs5riRMzIibFDsE/FyYVNX2VHQg== =onWA -END PGP PUBLIC KEY BLOCK-
Bug#1009071: closed by matthias.geiger1...@tutanota.de ()
Please do not close a bug before it is actually solved. Code sitting in Salsa is not it. Code actually in Debian itself is it. - Jonas -- * Jonas Smedegaard - idealist & Internet-arkitekt * Tlf.: +45 40843136 Website: http://dr.jones.dk/ * Sponsorship: https://ko-fi.com/drjones [x] quote me freely [ ] ask before reusing [ ] keep private signature.asc Description: signature
Bug#1009071:
Added in 81914839c41a7ab99a910c1f90316e0a1c59d2af. Version 4.x of asphd will land in unstable once I upload gtk 0.6 which needs a newer rustc. regards, --- Matthias Geiger (werdahias) -BEGIN PGP PUBLIC KEY BLOCK- mQINBGJGNsQBEADCVylaCtYtBQW4NmDrZOIizSrVlv5ZJ5WJ128MAblWk3fRFPya Cs/klkTT58ehBSr61sXVP+NpkF7MWOBu2CNg66U40a/Eb+v4poxNaIjXKvQtf51S y5yGwmTc7IJg8HuohT7K3/pcsEt0jvYSwvvDFUIz5WdOR5RmB7WkDRGh8Zaior3z tzx6AKhx/aXmAc/i4BDavDxZeFC0d79H3S1+TvFsvhyIZXIFTB0sTzWreZZxSOjk Mz6xxgWGdc27lsbZbKU7N+c+GnWrRlTjimU1AfPLJQgehIejR9pSyZ2Y5BAqB7Qr f8Tvc8jc1kDx473sUUla6ELEuJMIISK1qam/B7buxZ1r/ngWRiQsqAHznm7OYk69 ttXBeHxS1b+HrcJMWfROkzsTuG6G//axMCb6x0MuyOgLXk87aDnDx1fPn62R+tq7 T4JvW51TSnlNNh75zA+8w3UzDHy2By0H6NSfiLerNnF7LGCXk7AiwQsaplrEjo/1 /4NraAqy1eO69SyozSiRuuA5KemlyPwJokpp2HMJX3cry2J7lV0+wnaaorQzz5Fi 7gRRlqXrOGwEcEG6i62VbIv2VW3Zy+qjaD3HRWXfKXXjpXske41Trv2qPI2/kGtJ TRWSWdTQ42oYOaEg/KUh0GnEoZerj50JC1qGmwElKYgd+2XQ8qR7uIB5qQARAQAB tDFNYXR0aGlhcyBHZWlnZXIgPG1hdHRoaWFzLmdlaWdlcjEwMjRAdHV0YW5vdGEu ZGU+iQJUBBMBCgA+FiEEwuGmy/3s5RGopBdtGL0QaztsVHUFAmJGNsQCGwMFCQPC ZwAFCwkIBwIGFQoJCAsCBBYCAwECHgECF4AACgkQGL0QaztsVHVMxQ/+M5JEQ5wk DDblHGUlK8IBnPM5peuDrMdQAsOQ5nSv90gl4z4HkRgomS70xMpvoS+g/8hPym4G PXpSFJsZWjFevACWMzZO84pqJhPaFnmjh3utkkiblNf8Wi350K+luAlRvT1FVD6i HM6kOxU0P9t9+PU38FH299oRw2qEqDw5Wx+Hrnp4gaGv1mssvAMiXeaaPGx4KSz8 sNXADHJDo78U6RGJM/rSng/8M7zd3c6E8MIH958mlWjUb8T10AZ/otH3nFSRIfds 5MdnnrsKAK3DMW4RanRWHPvTsICDDkuRvigd32waQRdZeA3dNbPxM6tKDL9GEH8Q AnkShJ7VmTXP9CV20vj15mleoeDMgqhX5KEOsc3DMnKcVqdb9CzHj6jNSFUverk1 bBNaJpIiWwtwjueR4Hgdof80AAgRin4YnWaOaPTSusrKyN8dCRVcRIbauVooWLil q2OrWftDVmmNciwoHr5/WDPNgkv9DAgY+DX8Y8LMWAkXgpB0KniiQaLzrW34zjnP ALTLTIvNid6YX8KOY6KhAVWfVdMC5j6GEGfbfyMLz63YPxA9Q1Af6oXS8MbdHyBw JV8ns2xm5fD2vZVw6JI1e8AMMDjH2fAqmH23MG0fN0zd2NUToHmvhX9APSzJIbET doFPn/mI/az4Oh24WHf3Ozr+XEDyWcyy1y+5Ag0EYkY2xAEQANL26Ixtq1QMUM+5 MHl2FK4foRODoKHe4ZzdOAumUBPJE/pxGVlVxCqzC+LUeFvA8LTYCt1B60yRveYR 4mmPTA7nAerG2m4aQPeIfzz6HXWkiu9mzgxqjhPxitiMR5f1du1rAWGPZxSkhdW6 fDWT4PkHoY78jbQXWYEnV85rwtZIZIduHGKWzyxln3qjrefmB04QkPJ2BDOsRTtD YeNddHAvcgZtyepqZka9lpowQTY6TXwM8uYArEa7Hll/4r9rcvkVQUxf8jqYpZ3v PLSzvvaDouH7WAg5nUaTeWAQdSq108rNRSTgScLZWjwmhFBA46RneRpij2OJ0lW4 QqFTlldjWXzgGj6u4nbXrSERGaPwyLGIkHoKbnTAm7791d/Y5UQImuPb1tIg5Pf7 OhtyWw3bstVDa5MvIUuGpi5yKPirhrtAfdZ3H2/HR814JuL2BYdjyCuR/Sj/lZTx +gJ0bm+Llr0KZDhjKMeWaqVqsD4bybgEe4d3zE4sj9GZ0tNUvXfPaRGY6tgh9sgT Iy28vnyYpFX+oSIZXRreDpfzyjDhvNbB+AFsPN5OXqaBpmu/378T5nRpUj/qbqEZ EsloCbAmgHfvIysQWYdJ+63S3ZqpbEQRa4Y7DeybaLi8xTMfdWa19T7vQY3mVWn5 ZooycK4fkbedu19+5l8zfhR7oWyBABEBAAGJAjwEGAEKACYWIQTC4abL/ezlEaik F20YvRBrO2xUdQUCYkY2xAIbDAUJA8JnAAAKCRAYvRBrO2xUdRuPD/4tdAf8nxsA upo5O99E4AS59OTXPQuVgt1U2Z7ssDvZ3O6qbZvIBWQ0NqnCsprCt71M6cWC2dkq WUs3oRRu4IzuB4LErcTr597k+iltJ60rhDL/hxSumToH6FSX1w8EWJVg3xgP4U39 HSx6QOlZ3bTgd9dS5S46jOptIYzX5wYkNzyMj1hbmTg0lVyMtWjqfCLNmF3EzGGC BLR3tMOxZURrxx8tL48iJlFyxJG3XahoyxDSNepo5HZ+AUnNq2TJPoPJQfb1/GB/ /LycKSXWgblyWuGRlgoCE1JcdwuRM5hI2xugZQrhgZaPUBch1MSoiIqwgR1A8NPL iypUPnwG4vEaVbMtem7OUghsx+fYwuGq0T7/ezjyVRv86U2gU1bmbxojct1AXSCT FCCR3Y8QAHV9o8U/eZ1XzcEZsXFd6siO5nEBl9HaTHh5gWDrk/molP85S7Y9JIBP wZygBjWOPCCkFlIuiPQlXsJezVu93ydz7uCNIJfHv30oVedcYHN1Wr7B/1j8wXMy wqW4Nw54yZ8zaJIo01Khym6cFFVXoAUZa+5QRvSmjnm1Go+ZwZA9i7zo/6LLSpeR 04+4a1Daysk0fTf+DscrxQbUBZX17e1n/EtLS8/pp+Xb/k1JK1iiNcdpfLJ7RNik GX00szhWs5riRMzIibFDsE/FyYVNX2VHQg== =onWA -END PGP PUBLIC KEY BLOCK-
Bug#1009071: rust-ashpd: diff for NMU version 0.1.0-1.1
Package: rust-ashpd
Version: 0.1.0-1
Severity: normal
Tags: patch pending
Dear maintainer,
I've prepared an NMU for rust-ashpd (versioned as 0.1.0-1.1) and
uploaded it without delay, due to current package being completely broken.
Regards,
- Jonas
diff -Nru rust-ashpd-0.1.0/debian/changelog rust-ashpd-0.1.0/debian/changelog
--- rust-ashpd-0.1.0/debian/changelog 2022-02-06 20:23:00.0 +0100
+++ rust-ashpd-0.1.0/debian/changelog 2022-04-06 21:38:58.0 +0200
@@ -1,3 +1,13 @@
+rust-ashpd (0.1.0-1.1) unstable; urgency=medium
+
+ * Non-maintainer upload.
+ * fix unsatisfiable dependency and failure to build from source:
++ extend patch and dependencies
+ to link against librust-gdk-0.14+default-dev
+ (not librust-gdk-0.13+default-dev never in Debian)
+
+ -- Jonas Smedegaard Wed, 06 Apr 2022 21:38:58 +0200
+
rust-ashpd (0.1.0-1) unstable; urgency=medium
* Package ashpd 0.1.0 from crates.io using debcargo 2.4.4
diff -Nru rust-ashpd-0.1.0/debian/control rust-ashpd-0.1.0/debian/control
--- rust-ashpd-0.1.0/debian/control 2022-02-06 20:23:00.0 +0100
+++ rust-ashpd-0.1.0/debian/control 2022-04-06 21:35:25.0 +0200
@@ -30,7 +30,7 @@
Depends:
${misc:Depends},
librust-enumflags2-0.6+default-dev,
- librust-gdk-0.13+default-dev,
+ librust-gdk-0.14+default-dev,
librust-serde-1+default-dev,
librust-serde-1+derive-dev,
librust-serde-repr-0.1+default-dev,
diff -Nru rust-ashpd-0.1.0/debian/patches/relax-deps.patch
rust-ashpd-0.1.0/debian/patches/relax-deps.patch
--- rust-ashpd-0.1.0/debian/patches/relax-deps.patch2022-02-06
20:23:00.0 +0100
+++ rust-ashpd-0.1.0/debian/patches/relax-deps.patch2022-04-06
21:35:47.0 +0200
@@ -1,6 +1,15 @@
--- a/Cargo.toml
+++ b/Cargo.toml
-@@ -42,14 +42,14 @@ version = "0.19"
+@@ -25,7 +25,7 @@
+ version = "0.6"
+
+ [dependencies.gdk]
+-version = "0.13"
++version = "0.14"
+ optional = true
+
+ [dependencies.serde]
+@@ -42,14 +42,14 @@
version = "0.19"
[dependencies.zbus]
