Bug#572966: flexml: should this package be removed?
On Mon, Mar 08, 2010 at 02:21:26PM +0100, Martin Quinson wrote: > ok. Point taken. I feel ashamed of the easy with which you solved the > issues, and I'll try to upload something solving these issues. Reopening > the bug to not loose the discussion & patch. No need to worry, really! > Thanks for this patch, and the rest of your work, All for the quality ;) Thanks for taking this seriously! Hauke signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Bug#572966: flexml: should this package be removed?
reopen 572966 retitle 572966 Packaging could easily be improved tag 572966 patch severity 572966 minor thanks Hi again, ok. Point taken. I feel ashamed of the easy with which you solved the issues, and I'll try to upload something solving these issues. Reopening the bug to not loose the discussion & patch. Thanks for this patch, and the rest of your work, Mt. Le lundi 08 mars 2010 à 11:18 +0100, Jan Hauke Rahm a écrit : > Hi again, > > On Mon, Mar 08, 2010 at 09:37:55AM +0100, Martin Quinson wrote: > > You must be kidding, right? > > No, I'm not. Although I acknowledge what you're saying and of course > accept your decision not to remove the package. Note that for this exact > reason I didn't send a request to remove it to ftp-masters but a > proposal to you. I understand my proposal wasn't that welcome :) > > > This package works just fine and have no bug > > beside a request for removing someone from uploaders. There's a bunch of > > requests from lintian about the packaging format, but since the software > > works just fine (and does so since 3 years), nobody should need to > > rebuild it anytime soon, so I dont feel the fact that the rules do not > > follow the lastest stadards as release critical. > > Well, I disagree here. Of course this is not release critical but if you > took the time to actually update the package, you'd see that it makes a > few changes. Yes, the code compiles apparently the same way, but two > changes are simply managed in the resulting binary: > * actually put the examples in there (you just have an empty dir) > * doc-base is nowadays organized by triggers which makes the generated > maintainer scripts useless > > I attached what I would change if this were a QA package. After all it's > your call and I'm not judging what you do, but from a QA perspective I'd > strongly go for a few changes (and if we're at it, do all of them). > > > Moreover, I'm not very active, but I'm not completely MIA: I read debian > > mails, and react to important matter. Since I use flexml on a daily > > basis, if something goes wrong with that soft, I'll handle it. > > Noted. Thanks for clearing that up. > > > Finally, a popcon score of 100 is quite a huge amount given the fact > > that this is a developer only tool, targeting only C programmer forced > > to add some XML in their project, but not willing to add a depend on > > some "fancy" library. > > Sorry, I didn't notice this earlier. Popcon is often misleading but it's > impossible to by-hand check every single package that exact. :( > > > That is why I'm closing this bug report. > > Right. > > > Thanks for you QA work anyway, > > Mt. > > You're welcome! > > Hauke > on behalf of Debian QA/MIA -- Chaque fois que je regarde la télé et que je vois ces pauvres enfants affamés à travers le monde, je me mets à pleurer sans pouvoir m'en empecher. Je veux dire, j'aimerais bien être mince comme eux, mais sans les mouches, la guerre et tout ca. --- Mariah Carey -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-bugs-dist-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Bug#572966: flexml: should this package be removed?
Hi again,
On Mon, Mar 08, 2010 at 09:37:55AM +0100, Martin Quinson wrote:
> You must be kidding, right?
No, I'm not. Although I acknowledge what you're saying and of course
accept your decision not to remove the package. Note that for this exact
reason I didn't send a request to remove it to ftp-masters but a
proposal to you. I understand my proposal wasn't that welcome :)
> This package works just fine and have no bug
> beside a request for removing someone from uploaders. There's a bunch of
> requests from lintian about the packaging format, but since the software
> works just fine (and does so since 3 years), nobody should need to
> rebuild it anytime soon, so I dont feel the fact that the rules do not
> follow the lastest stadards as release critical.
Well, I disagree here. Of course this is not release critical but if you
took the time to actually update the package, you'd see that it makes a
few changes. Yes, the code compiles apparently the same way, but two
changes are simply managed in the resulting binary:
* actually put the examples in there (you just have an empty dir)
* doc-base is nowadays organized by triggers which makes the generated
maintainer scripts useless
I attached what I would change if this were a QA package. After all it's
your call and I'm not judging what you do, but from a QA perspective I'd
strongly go for a few changes (and if we're at it, do all of them).
> Moreover, I'm not very active, but I'm not completely MIA: I read debian
> mails, and react to important matter. Since I use flexml on a daily
> basis, if something goes wrong with that soft, I'll handle it.
Noted. Thanks for clearing that up.
> Finally, a popcon score of 100 is quite a huge amount given the fact
> that this is a developer only tool, targeting only C programmer forced
> to add some XML in their project, but not willing to add a depend on
> some "fancy" library.
Sorry, I didn't notice this earlier. Popcon is often misleading but it's
impossible to by-hand check every single package that exact. :(
> That is why I'm closing this bug report.
Right.
> Thanks for you QA work anyway,
> Mt.
You're welcome!
Hauke
on behalf of Debian QA/MIA
diff -u flexml-1.8/debian/changelog flexml-1.8/debian/changelog
--- flexml-1.8/debian/changelog
+++ flexml-1.8/debian/changelog
@@ -1,3 +1,18 @@
+flexml (1.8-1.1) unstable; urgency=low
+
+ * Non-maintainer upload.
+ * Updating the flexml Uploaders list (Closes: #521446)
+ * Change doc-base section to "Programming"
+ * Add examples directory
+ * Add Homepage field
+ * Slight modification of debian/copyright to be more precise
+ * Switch to debhelper 7 and by that
++ acknowledge DEB_BUILD_OPTIONS
++ use doc-base trigger instead of generating debian/post*
+ * As a consequence, bump standards-version to 3.8.4
+
+ -- Jan Hauke Rahm Mon, 08 Mar 2010 11:05:42 +0100
+
flexml (1.8-1) unstable; urgency=low
* Do not load unistd on windows platforms since this does not exist
reverted:
--- flexml-1.8/debian/dirs
+++ flexml-1.8.orig/debian/dirs
@@ -1,7 +0,0 @@
-usr/bin
-usr/lib
-usr/share/flexml
-usr/share/doc/flexml
-usr/share/doc/flexml/examples
-usr/share/man
-usr/share/man/man1
diff -u flexml-1.8/debian/doc-base flexml-1.8/debian/doc-base
--- flexml-1.8/debian/doc-base
+++ flexml-1.8/debian/doc-base
@@ -3,7 +3,7 @@
Author: Kristoffer Rose
Abstract: This manual describes what FleXML is and how it can be used
to generate validating XML processors and applications.
-Section: devel
+Section: Programming
Format: HTML
Index: /usr/share/doc/flexml/html/FleXML.html
diff -u flexml-1.8/debian/copyright flexml-1.8/debian/copyright
--- flexml-1.8/debian/copyright
+++ flexml-1.8/debian/copyright
@@ -6 +6,2 @@
-Copyright: GNU CopyLeft (see /usr/share/common-licenses/GPL).
+Copyright: (C) 1999-2010 Kristoffer Rose
+License: GNU GPL-2+ (see /usr/share/common-licenses/GPL-2).
diff -u flexml-1.8/debian/control flexml-1.8/debian/control
--- flexml-1.8/debian/control
+++ flexml-1.8/debian/control
@@ -2,13 +2,15 @@
Section: devel
Priority: optional
Maintainer: Martin Quinson
-Uploaders: Kristoffer H. Rose , Martin Quinson
-Build-Depends: libwww-perl, debhelper (>>4.0.0), liburi-perl, libdate-calc-perl, flex
-Standards-Version: 3.5.10
+Build-Depends: libwww-perl, debhelper (>= 7.0.50~), liburi-perl,
+ libdate-calc-perl, flex
+Standards-Version: 3.8.4
+Homepage: http://flexml.sourceforge.net/
Package: flexml
Architecture: any
-Depends: ${shlibs:Depends}, libwww-perl, liburi-perl, libdate-calc-perl
+Depends: ${shlibs:Depends}, libwww-perl, liburi-perl, libdate-calc-perl,
+ ${misc:Depends}
Recommends: flex
Description: generate fast validating XML processors and applications
FleXML makes it easy to generate very fast validating XML processors
diff -u flexml-1.8/debian/compat flexml-1.8/debian/compat
--- flexml-1.8/debian/compat
+++ flexml-1.8/debian/compat
@@ -1 +1 @@
-5
+7
diff -u flexml-1.8/debian/rules flexml-1.8/debian/rules
--- flexml-1.8/debia
Bug#572966: flexml: should this package be removed?
close 572966 thanks Hey there, You must be kidding, right? This package works just fine and have no bug beside a request for removing someone from uploaders. There's a bunch of requests from lintian about the packaging format, but since the software works just fine (and does so since 3 years), nobody should need to rebuild it anytime soon, so I dont feel the fact that the rules do not follow the lastest stadards as release critical. Moreover, I'm not very active, but I'm not completely MIA: I read debian mails, and react to important matter. Since I use flexml on a daily basis, if something goes wrong with that soft, I'll handle it. Finally, a popcon score of 100 is quite a huge amount given the fact that this is a developer only tool, targeting only C programmer forced to add some XML in their project, but not willing to add a depend on some "fancy" library. That is why I'm closing this bug report. Thanks for you QA work anyway, Mt. Le dimanche 07 mars 2010 à 22:11 +0100, Jan Hauke Rahm a écrit : > Package: flexml > Version: 1.8-1 > Severity: serious > Tags: squeeze sid > User: debian...@lists.debian.org > Usertags: proposed-removal > > Dear Maintainers, > > while reviewing some packages, your package came up as a possible > candidate for removal from Debian, because: > > * you all are MIA, right? > * standards-version 3.5.10, i.e. very outdated > -> last upload in 2007 > * lintian errors and warnings > * low popcon (< 100) > > If you think that it should be orphaned instead of being removed from > Debian, please reply to this bug and tell so. > > If you disagree and want to continue to maintain this package, please > just close this bug and do an upload also fixing the other issues. > > If you agree that it should be removed, send the following commands to > cont...@bugs.debian.org (replace nn with this bug's number): > > severity nn normal > reassign nn ftp.debian.org > retitle nn RM: -- RoM; > thanks > > For more information, see > http://wiki.debian.org/ftpmaster_Removals > http://ftp-master.debian.org/removals.txt > > Thank you, > > Hauke > on behalf of Debian QA/MIA -- I don't care whichever programming language we choose, as long as it's C. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-bugs-dist-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Bug#572966: flexml: should this package be removed?
Package: flexml Version: 1.8-1 Severity: serious Tags: squeeze sid User: debian...@lists.debian.org Usertags: proposed-removal Dear Maintainers, while reviewing some packages, your package came up as a possible candidate for removal from Debian, because: * you all are MIA, right? * standards-version 3.5.10, i.e. very outdated -> last upload in 2007 * lintian errors and warnings * low popcon (< 100) If you think that it should be orphaned instead of being removed from Debian, please reply to this bug and tell so. If you disagree and want to continue to maintain this package, please just close this bug and do an upload also fixing the other issues. If you agree that it should be removed, send the following commands to cont...@bugs.debian.org (replace nn with this bug's number): severity nn normal reassign nn ftp.debian.org retitle nn RM: -- RoM; thanks For more information, see http://wiki.debian.org/ftpmaster_Removals http://ftp-master.debian.org/removals.txt Thank you, Hauke on behalf of Debian QA/MIA signature.asc Description: Digital signature
