Bug#738683: RFS: hexchat/2.9.6.1-1 [ITP]

2014-02-18 Thread Jesse Rhodes 
The copyright exception is in the upstream readme, in the source
tarball under share/doc. The readme is where xchat mentions the
OpenSSL exception, as well. This is one of the first things I
discussed with #debian-mentors when I started this process and a
couple people said it was fine to have the exception mentioned in a
readme and not specifically in a LICENSE file, it just needs to be
there.

But if that's incorrect and upstream really does need to make some
changes, I'll talk to them about it. Shouldn't be too hard.


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-bugs-dist-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org

Bug#738683: RFS: hexchat/2.9.6.1-1 [ITP]

2014-02-18 Thread Jesse Rhodes 
Hi Vincent,

Here's the rest:

1) Recommends line moved back to where it should be

2) There is no doxygen-built documentation distributed with this
package; I discussed it with #debian-mentors and they seemed to think
that the Doxyfile in the upstream tarball is only there for
development purposes and its output wouldn't be necessary in a binary
distribution. (The plugin interface is documented separately, and
already included in hexchat-common.)

3) I turned on verbose building and -D_FORTIFY_SOURCE=2 is indeed
being used when python.so is being compiled, so that would make this
an upstream issue, correct? Anything in particular I should mention
when I report it to them?

4) The weird debian/rules targets were because I referred to the xchat
package for examples, and its debian/rules may have been written
originally before dh overrides were available/widely known. What I did
worked, so I accepted it and moved on. I have switched the format to
override_dh_* targets now.

5) debian/watch updated.

Let me know your thoughts on the license exception, as well as point 2
in this email, and then I'll re-upload with the final decision.

sney


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-bugs-dist-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org

Bug#738683: RFS: hexchat/2.9.6.1-1 [ITP]

2014-02-17 Thread Vincent Cheng 
Control: tag -1 + moreinfo

On Tue, Feb 11, 2014 at 2:43 PM, sney dr...@drubo.net wrote:
 Package: sponsorship-requests
 Severity: wishlist

 Dear mentors,

 I am looking for a sponsor for my package hexchat

Comments:

- debian/copyright is incomplete: e.g.
 src/dirent/dirent-win32.h: Toni Ronkko, Expat
 intl/*.{c,h}: Free Software Foundation, Inc., LGPL-2.1+

I find licensecheck (from devscripts) to be a very useful tool to dig
through license headers in each file. Of course, it's not perfect, so
you still have to do some manual work. Anyways, there may be more
undocumented license headers, I just gave a few examples above.

- debian/control:

Package: hexchat-common
Architecture: all
Recommends: xchat

  ^  shouldn't that be hexchat?

Also, please consider using wrap-and-sort -s to sort your
build-depends and depends field alphabetically and one per line; it
makes reviewing diffs to debian/control much easier to read later on.

- debian/changelog: collapse all unreleased entries into a single
entry (i.e. just retain your 2.9.6.1-1 entry and delete everything
else)

- debian/paste.txt: remove this

Regards,
Vincent


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-bugs-dist-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org

Bug#738683: RFS: hexchat/2.9.6.1-1 [ITP]

2014-02-17 Thread Jesse Rhodes 
On Mon, Feb 17, 2014 at 1:19 AM, Vincent Cheng vch...@debian.org wrote:
 Control: tag -1 + moreinfo

 On Tue, Feb 11, 2014 at 2:43 PM, sney dr...@drubo.net wrote:
 Package: sponsorship-requests
 Severity: wishlist

 Dear mentors,

 I am looking for a sponsor for my package hexchat

 Comments:

 - debian/copyright is incomplete: e.g.
  src/dirent/dirent-win32.h: Toni Ronkko, Expat
  intl/*.{c,h}: Free Software Foundation, Inc., LGPL-2.1+

 I find licensecheck (from devscripts) to be a very useful tool to dig
 through license headers in each file. Of course, it's not perfect, so
 you still have to do some manual work. Anyways, there may be more
 undocumented license headers, I just gave a few examples above.

There were several. All done now, I'm 99% sure.

 - debian/control:

 Package: hexchat-common
 Architecture: all
 Recommends: xchat

   ^  shouldn't that be hexchat?

Oops. Done.

 Also, please consider using wrap-and-sort -s to sort your
 build-depends and depends field alphabetically and one per line; it
 makes reviewing diffs to debian/control much easier to read later on.

Done.

 - debian/changelog: collapse all unreleased entries into a single
 entry (i.e. just retain your 2.9.6.1-1 entry and delete everything
 else)

Done.

 - debian/paste.txt: remove this

And done.


Let me know if there's anything else.

sney


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-bugs-dist-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org

Bug#738683: RFS: hexchat/2.9.6.1-1 [ITP]

2014-02-17 Thread Vincent Cheng 
On Mon, Feb 17, 2014 at 11:41 AM, Jesse Rhodes dr...@drubo.net wrote:
 On Mon, Feb 17, 2014 at 1:19 AM, Vincent Cheng vch...@debian.org wrote:
 Control: tag -1 + moreinfo

 On Tue, Feb 11, 2014 at 2:43 PM, sney dr...@drubo.net wrote:
 Package: sponsorship-requests
 Severity: wishlist

 Dear mentors,

 I am looking for a sponsor for my package hexchat

 Comments:

 - debian/copyright is incomplete: e.g.
  src/dirent/dirent-win32.h: Toni Ronkko, Expat
  intl/*.{c,h}: Free Software Foundation, Inc., LGPL-2.1+

 I find licensecheck (from devscripts) to be a very useful tool to dig
 through license headers in each file. Of course, it's not perfect, so
 you still have to do some manual work. Anyways, there may be more
 undocumented license headers, I just gave a few examples above.

 There were several. All done now, I'm 99% sure.

Another issue with the licensing that I neglected to mention in my
last email is the fact that you claim in d/copyright that the source
is licensed under GPL + openssl exception, but I cannot find any
mention of this within the source tarball (there is no COPYING/LICENSE
file in the top-level directory, and none of the GPL headers in the
source files acknowledge the openssl linking exception). This needs to
be documented somewhere in the source tarball itself.

Can you ask upstream to release a new tarball with either a top-level
COPYING file (like what is currently in their github repo, except it
doesn't acknowledge the openssl exception either...ask them to fix
that too), and/or to add the openssl exception to their per-file
license headers?

(FWIW I don't think ftpmasters will let hexchat through the NEW queue
without the above being fixed, so consider this a blocker for an
upload.)

 - debian/control:

 Package: hexchat-common
 Architecture: all
 Recommends: xchat

   ^  shouldn't that be hexchat?

 Oops. Done.

This is somewhat pedantic, but can you move the Recommends: line just
below the Depends: line (like it was before), and not after the long
description?

 Also, please consider using wrap-and-sort -s to sort your
 build-depends and depends field alphabetically and one per line; it
 makes reviewing diffs to debian/control much easier to read later on.

 Done.

 - debian/changelog: collapse all unreleased entries into a single
 entry (i.e. just retain your 2.9.6.1-1 entry and delete everything
 else)

 Done.

 - debian/paste.txt: remove this

 And done.


 Let me know if there's anything else.

- Documentation should be rebuilt during the build process with doxygen.
- Lintian complains about hardening-no-fortify-functions, but your
build is non-verbose (so you can't actually see if the source is
compiled with -D_FORTIFY_SOURCE=2 in the build log). You can enable
verbose build with autotools using --disable-silent-rules, e.g.

override_dh_auto_configure:
dh_auto_configure -- --disable-silent-rules

That brings me to another point; why not use override_dh_* targets
instead of defining build: and misc: like you're doing now in d/rules?

- debian/watch can be made more robust if you check for other possible
filenames, e.g.
http://dl.hexchat.net/hexchat/hexchat-(.*)\.(?:zip|tgz|tbz|txz|(?:tar\.(?:gz|bz2|xz)))

Regards,
Vincent


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-bugs-dist-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org

Bug#738683: RFS: hexchat/2.9.6.1-1 [ITP]

2014-02-11 Thread sney 
Package: sponsorship-requests
Severity: wishlist

Dear mentors,

I am looking for a sponsor for my package hexchat

   Package name : hexchat
   Version  : 2.9.6.1-1
   Upstream Author  : Berke Viktor
   URL  : http://hexchat.github.io
   License  : GPL-2 with OpenSSL exception
   Section  : net

It builds these binary packages:
hexchat - IRC client for X based on X-Chat 2
hexchat-common  - Common files for HexChat

To access further information about this package, please visit the following
URL:

http://mentors.debian.net/package/hexchat

Alternatively, one can download the package with dget using this command:

dget -x
http://mentors.debian.net/debian/pool/main/h/hexchat/hexchat_2.9.6.1-1.dsc

More information about HexChat can be obtained from http://hexchat.github.io/
and http://hexchat.readthedocs.org/.

Please let me know if you need any more information.

Regards,
Jesse Rhodes (sney)



-- System Information:
Debian Release: jessie/sid
  APT prefers unstable
  APT policy: (990, 'unstable'), (1, 'experimental')
Architecture: i386 (x86_64)

Kernel: Linux 3.12-1-amd64 (SMP w/4 CPU cores)
Locale: LANG=en_CA.UTF-8, LC_CTYPE=en_CA.UTF-8 (charmap=UTF-8)
Shell: /bin/sh linked to /bin/dash


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-bugs-dist-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org

Bug#738683: RFS: hexchat/2.9.6.1-1 [ITP]

2014-02-11 Thread Paul Wise 
On Wed, Feb 12, 2014 at 6:43 AM, sney wrote:

 hexchat - IRC client for X based on X-Chat 2

If this reaches Debian please ensure that it gets added to the
security team's embedded-code-copies file, they track forks too.

http://wiki.debian.org/EmbeddedCodeCopies

What is the plan for xchat? Will it be removed in favour of hexchat?
Are you co-ordinating with the Debian maintainers of xchat? Why was
there a fork, is xchat no longer developed upstream?

-- 
bye,
pabs

http://wiki.debian.org/PaulWise


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-bugs-dist-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org

Bug#738683: RFS: hexchat/2.9.6.1-1 [ITP]

2014-02-11 Thread Jesse Rhodes 
Copying the bug as I neglected to do that
-- Forwarded message --
From: Jesse Rhodes dr...@drubo.net
Date: 2014-02-11 6:36 PM
Subject: Re: Bug#738683: RFS: hexchat/2.9.6.1-1 [ITP]
To: Paul Wise p...@debian.org
Cc:


 On 2014-02-11 6:18 PM, Paul Wise p...@debian.org wrote:
 
  On Wed, Feb 12, 2014 at 6:43 AM, sney wrote:
 
   hexchat - IRC client for X based on X-Chat 2
 
  If this reaches Debian please ensure that it gets added to the
  security team's embedded-code-copies file, they track forks too.

 OK, noted.

  What is the plan for xchat? Will it be removed in favour of hexchat?
  Are you co-ordinating with the Debian maintainers of xchat? Why was
  there a fork, is xchat no longer developed upstream?
 Exactly right. Xchat upstream development stalled in 2010. Furthermore,
the last update in debian was a nmu and the most recent update by the
maintainer was in 2012. I emailed the xchat maintainer quite some time ago
asking if he had any plans to replace xchat with hexchat and never received
a response. As for whether hexchat will replace xchat as a result of my
packaging it, that's up in the air - they don't use the same dotfiles or
path names so they can coexist on the same system without issues. Perhaps
popcon can make that decision.

 Thanks for your feedback.

 sney

Bug#738683: RFS: hexchat/2.9.6.1-1 [ITP]

2014-02-11 Thread Jesse Rhodes 
I've also filed an upstream bug due to the Lintian pedantic warning of
debian-watch-may-check-gpg-signature.

That bug can be found here: https://github.com/hexchat/hexchat/issues/895


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-bugs-dist-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org