Bug#825701: should osptoolkit be removed from Debian?

[Di-Shi Sun]

Well, I have to say I do not know the answer. This copyright statement was
there before 2002 in the earliest version I can find. The info I got is,
this is a mistake and it should not be there.

Regards,

Di-Shi Sun.

-Original Message-
From: 'Mattia Rizzolo' [mailto:mat...@debian.org] 
Sent: Tuesday, June 28, 2016 1:53 PM
To: Di-Shi Sun
Cc: 825...@bugs.debian.org
Subject: Re: Bug#825701: should osptoolkit be removed from Debian?

On Tue, Jun 28, 2016 at 09:30:34AM +0800, Di-Shi Sun wrote:
> The upstream source is repackaged and uploaded to mentors.debian.net. 
> Would you please review it?

I can see how you just removed that copyright header.
But now I want to know why that copyright header was there in the first
place.

--
regards,
Mattia Rizzolo

GPG Key: 66AE 2B4A FCCF 3F52 DA18  4D18 4B04 3FCD B944 4540  .''`.
more about me:  https://mapreri.org : :'  :
Launchpad user: https://launchpad.net/~mapreri  `. `'`
Debian QA page: https://qa.debian.org/developer.php?login=mattia  `-

Bug#825701: should osptoolkit be removed from Debian?

['Mattia Rizzolo']

On Tue, Jun 28, 2016 at 09:30:34AM +0800, Di-Shi Sun wrote:
> The upstream source is repackaged and uploaded to mentors.debian.net. Would
> you please review it?

I can see how you just removed that copyright header.
But now I want to know why that copyright header was there in the first
place.

-- 
regards,
Mattia Rizzolo

GPG Key: 66AE 2B4A FCCF 3F52 DA18  4D18 4B04 3FCD B944 4540  .''`.
more about me:  https://mapreri.org : :'  :
Launchpad user: https://launchpad.net/~mapreri  `. `'`
Debian QA page: https://qa.debian.org/developer.php?login=mattia  `-


signature.asc
Description: PGP signature

Bug#825701: should osptoolkit be removed from Debian?

[Di-Shi Sun]

Hi Mattia,

The upstream source is repackaged and uploaded to mentors.debian.net. Would
you please review it?

Thanks,

Di-Shi Sun.

-Original Message-
From: 'Mattia Rizzolo' [mailto:mat...@debian.org] 
Sent: Monday, June 27, 2016 9:02 PM
To: Di-Shi Sun
Cc: 825...@bugs.debian.org
Subject: Bug#825701: should osptoolkit be removed from Debian?

On Mon, Jun 27, 2016 at 08:53:02PM +0800, Di-Shi Sun wrote:
> Would you please send us the diff for debian/changelog again? We do 
> not find it.

whoops, I apparently forgot to attach it, here it is, sorry.

> For the license issue, it is an issue in the upstream project. We will 
> fix it in Debian first and upload the packages after we receive the 
> d/changelog diff.

yeah.
If you need to repack the upstream source, please use 4.11.3+dfsg as a
version.

--
regards,
Mattia Rizzolo

GPG Key: 66AE 2B4A FCCF 3F52 DA18  4D18 4B04 3FCD B944 4540  .''`.
more about me:  https://mapreri.org : :'  :
Launchpad user: https://launchpad.net/~mapreri  `. `'`
Debian QA page: https://qa.debian.org/developer.php?login=mattia  `-

Bug#825701: should osptoolkit be removed from Debian?

['Mattia Rizzolo']

On Mon, Jun 27, 2016 at 08:53:02PM +0800, Di-Shi Sun wrote:
> Would you please send us the diff for debian/changelog again? We do not find
> it.

whoops, I apparently forgot to attach it, here it is, sorry.

> For the license issue, it is an issue in the upstream project. We will fix
> it in Debian first and upload the packages after we receive the d/changelog
> diff.

yeah.
If you need to repack the upstream source, please use 4.11.3+dfsg as a
version.

-- 
regards,
Mattia Rizzolo

GPG Key: 66AE 2B4A FCCF 3F52 DA18  4D18 4B04 3FCD B944 4540  .''`.
more about me:  https://mapreri.org : :'  :
Launchpad user: https://launchpad.net/~mapreri  `. `'`
Debian QA page: https://qa.debian.org/developer.php?login=mattia  `-
diffstat for osptoolkit-4.11.3 osptoolkit-4.11.3

 changelog |   18 --
 1 file changed, 4 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)

diff -Nru osptoolkit-4.11.3/debian/changelog osptoolkit-4.11.3/debian/changelog
--- osptoolkit-4.11.3/debian/changelog  2016-06-24 11:24:30.0 +
+++ osptoolkit-4.11.3/debian/changelog  2016-06-27 05:28:59.0 +
@@ -1,28 +1,18 @@
-osptoolkit (4.11.3-2) unstable; urgency=medium
+osptoolkit (4.11.3-1) unstable; urgency=medium
 
+  * Update for upstream OSP Toolkit 4.11.3 (Closes: #786975, #804623)
   * Change docs to osptoolkit.docs.
   * Update osptoolkit.txt.
   * Remove .dirs files.
   * Update Makefile to create install directories.
   * Update test_app.c.patch for Forwarded.
 
- -- TransNexus   Fri, 24 Jun 2016 05:46:43 -0400
-
-osptoolkit (4.11.3-1.1) UNRELEASED; urgency=medium
-
-  * Non-maintainer upload.
+  [ Mattia Rizzolo ]
   * Remove -dbg package, nowadays we have automatic -dbgsym.
   * Convert d/rules to use the dh(1) sequencer.
   * Rename versioned -dev package to unversioned one.
-  * Remove .la file.
-
- -- Mattia Rizzolo   Thu, 23 Jun 2016 10:28:32 +
 
-osptoolkit (4.11.3-1) unstable; urgency=medium
-
-  * Update for upstream OSP Toolkit 4.11.3 (Closes: #786975, #804623)
-
- -- TransNexus   Tue, 07 Jun 2016 10:06:36 -0400
+ -- TransNexus   Fri, 24 Jun 2016 05:46:43 -0400
 
 osptoolkit (3.4.2-1.2) unstable; urgency=medium
 


signature.asc
Description: PGP signature

Bug#825701: should osptoolkit be removed from Debian?

[Di-Shi Sun]

Hi Mattia,

Would you please send us the diff for debian/changelog again? We do not find
it.

For the license issue, it is an issue in the upstream project. We will fix
it in Debian first and upload the packages after we receive the d/changelog
diff.

Thanks,

Di-Shi Sun.

-Original Message-
From: 'Mattia Rizzolo' [mailto:mat...@debian.org] 
Sent: Monday, June 27, 2016 1:38 PM
To: Di-Shi Sun
Cc: 825...@bugs.debian.org
Subject: Re: Bug#825701: should osptoolkit be removed from Debian?

On Mon, Jun 27, 2016 at 09:07:31AM +0800, Di-Shi Sun wrote:
> Hi Mattia,
> 
> We went through the list and met one issue,
> 
> dpkg-genchanges: warning: package osptoolkit-dbgsym listed in files 
> list but not in control info
> dpkg-genchanges: warning: package libosptk4-dbgsym listed in files 
> list but not in control info

this one is a red herring.  FYI this is already fixed in dpkg's git (not
publically).

> All others look fine.

yep indeed)

> The updated packages have been uploaded to mentors.

I tweaked d/changelog to keep only one paragraph, as the others refers to
non-uploaded versions, see the attached diff.
And uploaded :)
I'll make sure to close this bug by myself once accepted (as it has to go
through NEW

> BTW, we believe #555877 have been fixed in 3.4.2-1.1 by explicitly 
> linking external libraries.

ok, I'm closing it, then.

--
regards,
Mattia Rizzolo

GPG Key: 66AE 2B4A FCCF 3F52 DA18  4D18 4B04 3FCD B944 4540  .''`.
more about me:  https://mapreri.org : :'  :
Launchpad user: https://launchpad.net/~mapreri  `. `'`
Debian QA page: https://qa.debian.org/developer.php?login=mattia  `-

Bug#825701: should osptoolkit be removed from Debian?

['Mattia Rizzolo']

On Mon, Jun 27, 2016 at 09:07:31AM +0800, Di-Shi Sun wrote:
> Hi Mattia,
> 
> We went through the list and met one issue,
> 
> dpkg-genchanges: warning: package osptoolkit-dbgsym listed in files list but
> not in control info
> dpkg-genchanges: warning: package libosptk4-dbgsym listed in files list but
> not in control info

this one is a red herring.  FYI this is already fixed in dpkg's git (not
publically).

> All others look fine.

yep indeed)

> The updated packages have been uploaded to mentors.

I tweaked d/changelog to keep only one paragraph, as the others refers
to non-uploaded versions, see the attached diff.
And uploaded :)
I'll make sure to close this bug by myself once accepted (as it has to
go through NEW

> BTW, we believe #555877 have been fixed in 3.4.2-1.1 by explicitly linking
> external libraries.

ok, I'm closing it, then.

-- 
regards,
Mattia Rizzolo

GPG Key: 66AE 2B4A FCCF 3F52 DA18  4D18 4B04 3FCD B944 4540  .''`.
more about me:  https://mapreri.org : :'  :
Launchpad user: https://launchpad.net/~mapreri  `. `'`
Debian QA page: https://qa.debian.org/developer.php?login=mattia  `-


signature.asc
Description: PGP signature

Bug#825701: should osptoolkit be removed from Debian?

[Di-Shi Sun]

Hi Mattia,

We went through the list and met one issue,

dpkg-genchanges: warning: package osptoolkit-dbgsym listed in files list but
not in control info
dpkg-genchanges: warning: package libosptk4-dbgsym listed in files list but
not in control info

All others look fine. 

The updated packages have been uploaded to mentors.

BTW, we believe #555877 have been fixed in 3.4.2-1.1 by explicitly linking
external libraries.

Thanks,

Di-Shi Sun.

-Original Message-
From: 'Mattia Rizzolo' [mailto:mat...@debian.org] 
Sent: Thursday, June 23, 2016 6:47 PM
To: Di-Shi Sun
Cc: 825...@bugs.debian.org; 'Support of Transnexus'
Subject: Re: Bug#825701: should osptoolkit be removed from Debian?

On Thu, Jun 23, 2016 at 05:26:12PM +0800, Di-Shi Sun wrote:
> Sorry for the delay. We just fixed the upload issues on 
> mentors.debian.net. You can find it at 
> https://mentors.debian.net/package/osptoolkit
> 
> There are several thing about the warning messages on 
> mentors.debian.net 1. no-upstream-changelog. The upstream source package
includes RELNOTES.txt for its changes. I am not sure if we must put all the
change info into debian/changelog.

https://www.debian.org/doc/debian-policy/ch-docs.html#s-changelogs
There is a dh_installchangelog utility, you should use it to install
RELNOTES.txt
*but* that file clearly has not been updated in a long time, so it's
probably more harmful than anything to ship it, so ignore that message.

> 3. A watch file is present but doesn't work. We tested the watch file on
our boxes. I do not know why mentors.debian.net thought it does not work.

Because mentors.d.n runs on wheezy, and there uscan is not newer enough to
work with version=4 files.

> BTW, we did not see any of these warning when we run lintian on our boxes.

Depends on level of "pendicness" you ask lintian.

> Please let us know if there is anything should be modified.

I'd like to ask you a few things, following newer best practise in debian
packaging:

* drop the -dbg package: nowdays debhelper automatically builds -dbgsym
  packages (though they are not installed in the main debian archive,
  but in a separate "debug archive")
  https://wiki.debian.org/AutomaticDebugPackages
* try dropping all the debian/*dirs files: they are usually useless, as
  debhelper tools take care of creating needed directories before
  installing files; is my personal belief that if you need such files
  thare are good chances your build system is buggy.  I tried and it
  fails to build, so I suggest you to put on your todo to make your
  build system more clever and create the needed directories.
* d/patches/test_app.c.patch: I can't think why that would be
  'Forwarded: not-needed', why can't you apply that upstream?
* please rename d/docs to d/osptoolkit.docs: d/docs is a very confusing
  file name because it makes you think that it install the docs in all
  produced binaries, while instead it only install them in the first
  package list in d/control... (I had a lot of people thinking it wrong,
  so I now advocate for renaming)
* versioned -dev packages usually bring only pain during transitions, as
  they require source changes to all reverse-dependency to change
  build-depends.  I appreciate that you don't have this problem as you
  don't have reverse-depends, but I wonder if you can take this occasion
  to rename the -dev package to just 'libosptk-dev'.  BTW, in both cases
  you should add a Conflicts: against the old -dev package, as both ship
  the same files, and so can't be installed toghether (I prefer a
  Conflicts (or Conflicts+Replace) in this occasion, rather than a
  Breaks+Replaces, since you should prefer the removal of the old binary
  before installing this).  See
  https://www.debian.org/doc/debian-policy/ch-relationships.html#s-conflicts
  (and §7.6).
* do you think you can close #555877 too?
* in d/rules:
  + that `ifneq (,$(findstring noopt,$(DEB_BUILD_OPTIONS)))`... is not
 needed: with a new enough dpkg and if you obeys dpkg-buildflags
 (which you do) is obsolete
  + can you convert your d/rules to use the dh sequencer instead?
  + please just remove the .la file.  I'm sure it's not used inside
debian.  Do you instead have any use for it?  (as a OS developer I
dislike static libraries by a great deal)
* d/*.install: they are all useless: thanks to that different sequence
  of `make install` in d/rules files are already installed in their
  final location, so dh_install (the program that reads those files)
  has nothing to do.  So, they can go away.

I appreciate that's quite some list of things, so I've done some of them,
attached a debdiff.


Please ping me as soon as you have an updated package, following my
suggestions :)

--
regards,
Mattia Rizzolo

GPG Key: 66AE 2B4A FCCF 3F52 DA18  4D18 4B04 3FCD B944 4540  .''`.
more about me:  https://mapreri.org : :'  :
Launchpad user: https://launchpad

Bug#825701: should osptoolkit be removed from Debian?

[Di-Shi Sun]

We will work on the items you list.

Thanks,

Di-Shi Sun.

-Original Message-
From: 'Mattia Rizzolo' [mailto:mat...@debian.org] 
Sent: Thursday, June 23, 2016 6:47 PM
To: Di-Shi Sun
Cc: 825...@bugs.debian.org; 'Support of Transnexus'
Subject: Re: Bug#825701: should osptoolkit be removed from Debian?

On Thu, Jun 23, 2016 at 05:26:12PM +0800, Di-Shi Sun wrote:
> Sorry for the delay. We just fixed the upload issues on 
> mentors.debian.net. You can find it at 
> https://mentors.debian.net/package/osptoolkit
> 
> There are several thing about the warning messages on 
> mentors.debian.net 1. no-upstream-changelog. The upstream source package
includes RELNOTES.txt for its changes. I am not sure if we must put all the
change info into debian/changelog.

https://www.debian.org/doc/debian-policy/ch-docs.html#s-changelogs
There is a dh_installchangelog utility, you should use it to install
RELNOTES.txt
*but* that file clearly has not been updated in a long time, so it's
probably more harmful than anything to ship it, so ignore that message.

> 3. A watch file is present but doesn't work. We tested the watch file on
our boxes. I do not know why mentors.debian.net thought it does not work.

Because mentors.d.n runs on wheezy, and there uscan is not newer enough to
work with version=4 files.

> BTW, we did not see any of these warning when we run lintian on our boxes.

Depends on level of "pendicness" you ask lintian.

> Please let us know if there is anything should be modified.

I'd like to ask you a few things, following newer best practise in debian
packaging:

* drop the -dbg package: nowdays debhelper automatically builds -dbgsym
  packages (though they are not installed in the main debian archive,
  but in a separate "debug archive")
  https://wiki.debian.org/AutomaticDebugPackages
* try dropping all the debian/*dirs files: they are usually useless, as
  debhelper tools take care of creating needed directories before
  installing files; is my personal belief that if you need such files
  thare are good chances your build system is buggy.  I tried and it
  fails to build, so I suggest you to put on your todo to make your
  build system more clever and create the needed directories.
* d/patches/test_app.c.patch: I can't think why that would be
  'Forwarded: not-needed', why can't you apply that upstream?
* please rename d/docs to d/osptoolkit.docs: d/docs is a very confusing
  file name because it makes you think that it install the docs in all
  produced binaries, while instead it only install them in the first
  package list in d/control... (I had a lot of people thinking it wrong,
  so I now advocate for renaming)
* versioned -dev packages usually bring only pain during transitions, as
  they require source changes to all reverse-dependency to change
  build-depends.  I appreciate that you don't have this problem as you
  don't have reverse-depends, but I wonder if you can take this occasion
  to rename the -dev package to just 'libosptk-dev'.  BTW, in both cases
  you should add a Conflicts: against the old -dev package, as both ship
  the same files, and so can't be installed toghether (I prefer a
  Conflicts (or Conflicts+Replace) in this occasion, rather than a
  Breaks+Replaces, since you should prefer the removal of the old binary
  before installing this).  See
  https://www.debian.org/doc/debian-policy/ch-relationships.html#s-conflicts
  (and §7.6).
* do you think you can close #555877 too?
* in d/rules:
  + that `ifneq (,$(findstring noopt,$(DEB_BUILD_OPTIONS)))`... is not
 needed: with a new enough dpkg and if you obeys dpkg-buildflags
 (which you do) is obsolete
  + can you convert your d/rules to use the dh sequencer instead?
  + please just remove the .la file.  I'm sure it's not used inside
debian.  Do you instead have any use for it?  (as a OS developer I
dislike static libraries by a great deal)
* d/*.install: they are all useless: thanks to that different sequence
  of `make install` in d/rules files are already installed in their
  final location, so dh_install (the program that reads those files)
  has nothing to do.  So, they can go away.

I appreciate that's quite some list of things, so I've done some of them,
attached a debdiff.


Please ping me as soon as you have an updated package, following my
suggestions :)

--
regards,
Mattia Rizzolo

GPG Key: 66AE 2B4A FCCF 3F52 DA18  4D18 4B04 3FCD B944 4540  .''`.
more about me:  https://mapreri.org : :'  :
Launchpad user: https://launchpad.net/~mapreri  `. `'`
Debian QA page: https://qa.debian.org/developer.php?login=mattia  `-

Bug#825701: should osptoolkit be removed from Debian?

['Mattia Rizzolo']

On Thu, Jun 23, 2016 at 05:26:12PM +0800, Di-Shi Sun wrote:
> Sorry for the delay. We just fixed the upload issues on mentors.debian.net. 
> You can find it at https://mentors.debian.net/package/osptoolkit
> 
> There are several thing about the warning messages on mentors.debian.net
> 1. no-upstream-changelog. The upstream source package includes RELNOTES.txt 
> for its changes. I am not sure if we must put all the change info into 
> debian/changelog.

https://www.debian.org/doc/debian-policy/ch-docs.html#s-changelogs
There is a dh_installchangelog utility, you should use it to install
RELNOTES.txt
*but* that file clearly has not been updated in a long time, so it's
probably more harmful than anything to ship it, so ignore that message.

> 3. A watch file is present but doesn't work. We tested the watch file on our 
> boxes. I do not know why mentors.debian.net thought it does not work.

Because mentors.d.n runs on wheezy, and there uscan is not newer enough
to work with version=4 files.

> BTW, we did not see any of these warning when we run lintian on our boxes.

Depends on level of "pendicness" you ask lintian.

> Please let us know if there is anything should be modified.

I'd like to ask you a few things, following newer best practise in
debian packaging:

* drop the -dbg package: nowdays debhelper automatically builds -dbgsym
  packages (though they are not installed in the main debian archive,
  but in a separate "debug archive")
  https://wiki.debian.org/AutomaticDebugPackages
* try dropping all the debian/*dirs files: they are usually useless, as
  debhelper tools take care of creating needed directories before
  installing files; is my personal belief that if you need such files
  thare are good chances your build system is buggy.  I tried and it
  fails to build, so I suggest you to put on your todo to make your
  build system more clever and create the needed directories.
* d/patches/test_app.c.patch: I can't think why that would be
  'Forwarded: not-needed', why can't you apply that upstream?
* please rename d/docs to d/osptoolkit.docs: d/docs is a very confusing
  file name because it makes you think that it install the docs in all
  produced binaries, while instead it only install them in the first
  package list in d/control... (I had a lot of people thinking it wrong,
  so I now advocate for renaming)
* versioned -dev packages usually bring only pain during transitions, as
  they require source changes to all reverse-dependency to change
  build-depends.  I appreciate that you don't have this problem as you
  don't have reverse-depends, but I wonder if you can take this occasion
  to rename the -dev package to just 'libosptk-dev'.  BTW, in both cases
  you should add a Conflicts: against the old -dev package, as both ship
  the same files, and so can't be installed toghether (I prefer a
  Conflicts (or Conflicts+Replace) in this occasion, rather than a
  Breaks+Replaces, since you should prefer the removal of the old binary
  before installing this).  See
  https://www.debian.org/doc/debian-policy/ch-relationships.html#s-conflicts
  (and §7.6).
* do you think you can close #555877 too?
* in d/rules:
  + that `ifneq (,$(findstring noopt,$(DEB_BUILD_OPTIONS)))`... is not
 needed: with a new enough dpkg and if you obeys dpkg-buildflags
 (which you do) is obsolete
  + can you convert your d/rules to use the dh sequencer instead?
  + please just remove the .la file.  I'm sure it's not used inside
debian.  Do you instead have any use for it?  (as a OS developer I
dislike static libraries by a great deal)
* d/*.install: they are all useless: thanks to that different sequence
  of `make install` in d/rules files are already installed in their
  final location, so dh_install (the program that reads those files)
  has nothing to do.  So, they can go away.

I appreciate that's quite some list of things, so I've done some of
them, attached a debdiff.


Please ping me as soon as you have an updated package, following my
suggestions :)

-- 
regards,
Mattia Rizzolo

GPG Key: 66AE 2B4A FCCF 3F52 DA18  4D18 4B04 3FCD B944 4540  .''`.
more about me:  https://mapreri.org : :'  :
Launchpad user: https://launchpad.net/~mapreri  `. `'`
Debian QA page: https://qa.debian.org/developer.php?login=mattia  `-
diff -Nru osptoolkit-4.11.3/debian/changelog osptoolkit-4.11.3/debian/changelog
--- osptoolkit-4.11.3/debian/changelog  2016-06-23 08:19:33.0 +
+++ osptoolkit-4.11.3/debian/changelog  2016-06-23 10:42:57.0 +
@@ -1,3 +1,13 @@
+osptoolkit (4.11.3-1.1) UNRELEASED; urgency=medium
+
+  * Non-maintainer upload.
+  * Remove -dbg package, nowadays we have automatic -dbgsym.
+  * Convert d/rules to use the dh(1) sequencer.
+  * Rename versioned -dev package to unversioned one.
+  * Remove .la file.
+
+ -- Mattia Rizzolo   Thu, 23 Jun 2016 10:28:32 +
+
 osptoolkit (4.11.3-1) unstable; 

Bug#825701: should osptoolkit be removed from Debian?

[Di-Shi Sun]

Hi Mattia,

Sorry for the delay. We just fixed the upload issues on mentors.debian.net. You 
can find it at https://mentors.debian.net/package/osptoolkit.

There are several thing about the warning messages on mentors.debian.net
1. no-upstream-changelog. The upstream source package includes RELNOTES.txt for 
its changes. I am not sure if we must put all the change info into 
debian/changelog.
2. debian-watch-may-check-gpg-signature. The upstream does not provide any 
signature.
3. A watch file is present but doesn't work. We tested the watch file on our 
boxes. I do not know why mentors.debian.net thought it does not work.

BTW, we did not see any of these warning when we run lintian on our boxes.

Please let us know if there is anything should be modified.

Thanks,

Di-Shi Sun.

-Original Message-
From: 'Mattia Rizzolo' [mailto:mat...@debian.org] 
Sent: Monday, June 20, 2016 5:43 PM
To: Di-Shi Sun
Cc: 825...@bugs.debian.org; 'Support of Transnexus'
Subject: Bug#825701: should osptoolkit be removed from Debian?

On Mon, Jun 20, 2016 at 09:10:41AM +0800, Di-Shi Sun wrote:
> The updated packages are ready.

cool!

> We cannot contact to the original sponsor, Julien BLACHE, by email. We 
> believe he left Debian.

I can't find such a person in the Debian LDAP, so I wouldn't know (ftr:
the LDAP also contain retired DDs, so it should be there…)

> Would you please tell us if you can help us to upload the packages, or 
> we should upload them to other places, such as mentors.debian.net, 
> first?

I can surely sponsor the package!
I wouldn't know where to find the sources to sponsor otherwise, so please 
upload them somewhere (mentors.debian.net is cool).
Mind you, I'll try to be cool this time, but I'm usually a pretty picky 
sponsor¹, so I might ask you to change some things.

¹ https://people.debian.org/~mattia/sponsoring.html

--
regards,
Mattia Rizzolo

GPG Key: 66AE 2B4A FCCF 3F52 DA18  4D18 4B04 3FCD B944 4540  .''`.
more about me:  https://mapreri.org : :'  :
Launchpad user: https://launchpad.net/~mapreri  `. `'`
Debian QA page: https://qa.debian.org/developer.php?login=mattia  `-

Bug#825701: should osptoolkit be removed from Debian?

[Di-Shi Sun]

Ok. We will upload the packages to mentors.debian.net and let you know.

Thanks,

Di-Shi Sun.

-Original Message-
From: 'Mattia Rizzolo' [mailto:mat...@debian.org] 
Sent: Monday, June 20, 2016 5:43 PM
To: Di-Shi Sun
Cc: 825...@bugs.debian.org; 'Support of Transnexus'
Subject: Bug#825701: should osptoolkit be removed from Debian?

On Mon, Jun 20, 2016 at 09:10:41AM +0800, Di-Shi Sun wrote:
> The updated packages are ready.

cool!

> We cannot contact to the original sponsor, Julien BLACHE, by email. We 
> believe he left Debian.

I can't find such a person in the Debian LDAP, so I wouldn't know (ftr:
the LDAP also contain retired DDs, so it should be there…)

> Would you please tell us if you can help us to upload the packages, or 
> we should upload them to other places, such as mentors.debian.net, 
> first?

I can surely sponsor the package!
I wouldn't know where to find the sources to sponsor otherwise, so please 
upload them somewhere (mentors.debian.net is cool).
Mind you, I'll try to be cool this time, but I'm usually a pretty picky 
sponsor¹, so I might ask you to change some things.

¹ https://people.debian.org/~mattia/sponsoring.html

--
regards,
Mattia Rizzolo

GPG Key: 66AE 2B4A FCCF 3F52 DA18  4D18 4B04 3FCD B944 4540  .''`.
more about me:  https://mapreri.org : :'  :
Launchpad user: https://launchpad.net/~mapreri  `. `'`
Debian QA page: https://qa.debian.org/developer.php?login=mattia  `-

Bug#825701: should osptoolkit be removed from Debian?

['Mattia Rizzolo']

On Mon, Jun 20, 2016 at 09:10:41AM +0800, Di-Shi Sun wrote:
> The updated packages are ready.

cool!

> We cannot contact to the original sponsor, Julien BLACHE, by email. We
> believe he left Debian.

I can't find such a person in the Debian LDAP, so I wouldn't know (ftr:
the LDAP also contain retired DDs, so it should be there…)

> Would you please tell us if you can help us to
> upload the packages, or we should upload them to other places, such as
> mentors.debian.net, first?

I can surely sponsor the package!
I wouldn't know where to find the sources to sponsor otherwise, so
please upload them somewhere (mentors.debian.net is cool).
Mind you, I'll try to be cool this time, but I'm usually a pretty picky
sponsor¹, so I might ask you to change some things.

¹ https://people.debian.org/~mattia/sponsoring.html

-- 
regards,
Mattia Rizzolo

GPG Key: 66AE 2B4A FCCF 3F52 DA18  4D18 4B04 3FCD B944 4540  .''`.
more about me:  https://mapreri.org : :'  :
Launchpad user: https://launchpad.net/~mapreri  `. `'`
Debian QA page: https://qa.debian.org/developer.php?login=mattia  `-


signature.asc
Description: PGP signature

Bug#825701: should osptoolkit be removed from Debian?

[Di-Shi Sun]

Hi Mattia,

The updated packages are ready.

We cannot contact to the original sponsor, Julien BLACHE, by email. We
believe he left Debian. Would you please tell us if you can help us to
upload the packages, or we should upload them to other places, such as
mentors.debian.net, first?

Thanks,

Di-Shi Sun.

-Original Message-
From: Di-Shi Sun [mailto:di-...@transnexus.com] 
Sent: Monday, June 13, 2016 8:30 AM
To: 'Mattia Rizzolo'; 825...@bugs.debian.org
Cc: Support of Transnexus
Subject: Bug#825701: should osptoolkit be removed from Debian?

Hi Mattia,

The package itself is almost done. We are working on lintian warning
messages now. Then test it with other packages such as OpenSIPS on different
platforms.

Regards,

Di-Shi Sun.

-Original Message-
From: 'Mattia Rizzolo' [mailto:mat...@debian.org]
Sent: Sunday, June 12, 2016 11:46 PM
To: di-...@transnexus.com; 825...@bugs.debian.org
Cc: isupp...@transnexus.com
Subject: Re: Bug#825701: should osptoolkit be removed from Debian?

Hi Di-Shi,

On Tue, May 31, 2016 at 11:35:34PM +0800, Di-Shi Sun wrote:
> Sorry for the delay of reply due to the holiday. We are working on it now.

And did anything happen in the last 12 days?

--
regards,
Mattia Rizzolo

GPG Key: 66AE 2B4A FCCF 3F52 DA18  4D18 4B04 3FCD B944 4540  .''`.
more about me:  https://mapreri.org : :'  :
Launchpad user: https://launchpad.net/~mapreri  `. `'`
Debian QA page: https://qa.debian.org/developer.php?login=mattia  `-

Bug#825701: should osptoolkit be removed from Debian?

[Di-Shi Sun]

Hi Mattia,

The package itself is almost done. We are working on lintian warning
messages now. Then test it with other packages such as OpenSIPS on different
platforms.

Regards,

Di-Shi Sun.

-Original Message-
From: 'Mattia Rizzolo' [mailto:mat...@debian.org] 
Sent: Sunday, June 12, 2016 11:46 PM
To: di-...@transnexus.com; 825...@bugs.debian.org
Cc: isupp...@transnexus.com
Subject: Re: Bug#825701: should osptoolkit be removed from Debian?

Hi Di-Shi,

On Tue, May 31, 2016 at 11:35:34PM +0800, Di-Shi Sun wrote:
> Sorry for the delay of reply due to the holiday. We are working on it now.

And did anything happen in the last 12 days?

-- 
regards,
Mattia Rizzolo

GPG Key: 66AE 2B4A FCCF 3F52 DA18  4D18 4B04 3FCD B944 4540  .''`.
more about me:  https://mapreri.org : :'  :
Launchpad user: https://launchpad.net/~mapreri  `. `'`
Debian QA page: https://qa.debian.org/developer.php?login=mattia  `-

Bug#825701: should osptoolkit be removed from Debian?

['Mattia Rizzolo']

Hi Di-Shi,

On Tue, May 31, 2016 at 11:35:34PM +0800, Di-Shi Sun wrote:
> Sorry for the delay of reply due to the holiday. We are working on it now.

And did anything happen in the last 12 days?

-- 
regards,
Mattia Rizzolo

GPG Key: 66AE 2B4A FCCF 3F52 DA18  4D18 4B04 3FCD B944 4540  .''`.
more about me:  https://mapreri.org : :'  :
Launchpad user: https://launchpad.net/~mapreri  `. `'`
Debian QA page: https://qa.debian.org/developer.php?login=mattia  `-


signature.asc
Description: PGP signature

Bug#825701: should osptoolkit be removed from Debian?

[Di-Shi Sun]

Hello Mattia,

Sorry for the delay of reply due to the holiday. We are working on it now. 

Regards,

Di-Shi Sun.

-Original Message-
From: 'Mattia Rizzolo' [mailto:mat...@debian.org] 
Sent: Sunday, May 29, 2016 8:43 AM
To: Di-Shi Sun
Cc: isupp...@transnexus.com; 825...@bugs.debian.org
Subject: Bug#825701: should osptoolkit be removed from Debian?

On Sun, May 29, 2016 at 08:27:16AM +0800, Di-Shi Sun wrote:
> Thank you for the notice. But we replied all the emails from Debian in
time.
> The latest one is attached. I do not know why they were not accepted.

you should probably teach your MUA (which is outlook, and that doesn't sound
good at all, actually, makes me really sad) to respect the Reply-To header,
then you wouldn't reply to only the submitter, but also the bug.

>From the bug you forwarded:
> From: Sebastian Andrzej Siewior [mailto:sebast...@breakpoint.cc]
> Sent: Thursday, April 21, 2016 5:19 AM
> To: di-...@transnexus.com
> Subject: osptoolkit in Debian

I don't think this was actually from a bug report.  The only email from
Sebastian is in #804623 and the content is different.  That was probably a
private email.


That said I bounced your email to the bug report, and added it to the
recipient of this email.  If you go looking at the bugs this package has,
you can easily see how none has a reply from you.


And by the end, what would be your schedule?
I assume that since 2008 something uploadable has been done?

--
regards,
Mattia Rizzolo

GPG Key: 66AE 2B4A FCCF 3F52 DA18  4D18 4B04 3FCD B944 4540  .''`.
more about me:  https://mapreri.org : :'  :
Launchpad user: https://launchpad.net/~mapreri  `. `'`
Debian QA page: https://qa.debian.org/developer.php?login=mattia  `-

Bug#825701: should osptoolkit be removed from Debian?

['Mattia Rizzolo']

On Sun, May 29, 2016 at 08:27:16AM +0800, Di-Shi Sun wrote:
> Thank you for the notice. But we replied all the emails from Debian in time.
> The latest one is attached. I do not know why they were not accepted.

you should probably teach your MUA (which is outlook, and that doesn't
sound good at all, actually, makes me really sad) to respect the
Reply-To header, then you wouldn't reply to only the submitter, but
also the bug.

From the bug you forwarded:
> From: Sebastian Andrzej Siewior [mailto:sebast...@breakpoint.cc]
> Sent: Thursday, April 21, 2016 5:19 AM
> To: di-...@transnexus.com
> Subject: osptoolkit in Debian

I don't think this was actually from a bug report.  The only email from
Sebastian is in #804623 and the content is different.  That was probably
a private email.


That said I bounced your email to the bug report, and added it to the
recipient of this email.  If you go looking at the bugs this package
has, you can easily see how none has a reply from you.


And by the end, what would be your schedule?
I assume that since 2008 something uploadable has been done?

-- 
regards,
Mattia Rizzolo

GPG Key: 66AE 2B4A FCCF 3F52 DA18  4D18 4B04 3FCD B944 4540  .''`.
more about me:  https://mapreri.org : :'  :
Launchpad user: https://launchpad.net/~mapreri  `. `'`
Debian QA page: https://qa.debian.org/developer.php?login=mattia  `-


signature.asc
Description: PGP signature

Bug#825701: should osptoolkit be removed from Debian?

[Di-Shi Sun]

Hello Mattia,

Thank you for the notice. But we replied all the emails from Debian in time.
The latest one is attached. I do not know why they were not accepted.

Sincerely,

Di-Shi Sun.

-Original Message-
From: Mattia Rizzolo [mailto:mat...@debian.org] 
Sent: Sunday, May 29, 2016 6:53 AM
To: sub...@bugs.debian.org
Subject: Bug#825701: should osptoolkit be removed from Debian?

Source: osptoolkit
Version: 3.4.2-1.2
Severity: serious

This package:
* has very few users https://qa.debian.org/popcon.php?package=osptoolkit
* one unanswered RC bug #804623
* no answer to the other bugs #555877 #786975
* actually you never bothered replying even to the closed bugs #713639
  #761782
* 2 NMU
* last (AND ONLY!) maintainer upload in 2008.  This is not how this is
  supposed to work, sorry.  Uploading a package to the archive means
  committing to maintain it.
* currently it just FTBFS.
* blocking openssl decruft


Given so, I'm going to ask for removal in about one week if nobody blocks me
before.



RM: osptoolkit -- RoQA; RC-buggy; FTBFS; unmaintained

--
regards,
Mattia Rizzolo

GPG Key: 66AE 2B4A FCCF 3F52 DA18  4D18 4B04 3FCD B944 4540  .''`.
more about me:  https://mapreri.org : :'  :
Launchpad user: https://launchpad.net/~mapreri  `. `'`
Debian QA page: https://qa.debian.org/developer.php?login=mattia  `-
--- Begin Message ---
Hi Sebastian,

Thank you very much for the notice. We have put the update plan on the schedule.

Regards,

Di-Shi Sun.

-Original Message-
From: Sebastian Andrzej Siewior [mailto:sebast...@breakpoint.cc] 
Sent: Thursday, April 21, 2016 5:19 AM
To: di-...@transnexus.com
Subject: osptoolkit in Debian

Hello,

noticed that Debian has v3.4.2 of osptoolkit which will not be part of next 
Debian stable release.
If I got this correct, then you prepared the last package and you are involved 
in upstream development. v4.11.1 seems to be the current version. Care to fix 
your package and/or provide a new version of it?

While browsing through the current source the package, I noticed that you use 
TLSv1_client_method(). You should be using
SSLv23_client_method() instead because the former gives you _only_ v1 protocol 
while the latter gives you multiple selections and as of today up to TLSv1.2

Sebastian
--- End Message ---

Bug#825701: should osptoolkit be removed from Debian?

[Mattia Rizzolo]

Source: osptoolkit
Version: 3.4.2-1.2
Severity: serious

This package:
* has very few users https://qa.debian.org/popcon.php?package=osptoolkit
* one unanswered RC bug #804623
* no answer to the other bugs #555877 #786975
* actually you never bothered replying even to the closed bugs #713639
  #761782
* 2 NMU
* last (AND ONLY!) maintainer upload in 2008.  This is not how this is
  supposed to work, sorry.  Uploading a package to the archive means
  committing to maintain it.
* currently it just FTBFS.
* blocking openssl decruft


Given so, I'm going to ask for removal in about one week if nobody
blocks me before.



RM: osptoolkit -- RoQA; RC-buggy; FTBFS; unmaintained

-- 
regards,
Mattia Rizzolo

GPG Key: 66AE 2B4A FCCF 3F52 DA18  4D18 4B04 3FCD B944 4540  .''`.
more about me:  https://mapreri.org : :'  :
Launchpad user: https://launchpad.net/~mapreri  `. `'`
Debian QA page: https://qa.debian.org/developer.php?login=mattia  `-


signature.asc
Description: PGP signature