Bug#636188: xscorch: Please transition to use libreadline6-dev
Package: xscorch Severity: serious Please transition to use libreadline6-dev instead of libreadline5-dev, the readline maintainer has said everyone should use version 6 except your package's license does not allow. Package libreadline5-dev has gone from unstable, so your package on mentors.debian.net FTBFS because missing dependency and cannot be sponsored. Note: buildd only consider the first candidate in Build-Depends list, which means libreadline5-dev | libreadline6-dev in build-dep equals to simply libreadline5-dev. Please drop me a line when you have updated it, don't forget to add RFS at the beginning of the mail's subject line. -- Regards, Aron Xu -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-bugs-rc-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Bug#636188: xscorch: Please transition to use libreadline6-dev
# Not including a version on RC bugs _really_ isn't helpful # Setting to the current testing / unstable version, as this # won't be changed in stable found 636188 0.2.1~pre2-3 thanks On Mon, 2011-08-01 at 15:43 +0800, Aron Xu wrote: Package: xscorch Severity: serious This should have been filed with an affected version; see above. Please transition to use libreadline6-dev instead of libreadline5-dev, the readline maintainer has said everyone should use version 6 except your package's license does not allow. Package libreadline5-dev has gone from unstable, so your package on mentors.debian.net FTBFS because missing dependency and cannot be sponsored. The copyright file of the version of xscorch currently in the archive says that the software is released under GPL-2 only. Assuming that's correct, then it's not possible to link it against the GPL-3 licensed libreadline6. Regards, Adam -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-bugs-rc-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Processed: Re: Bug#636188: xscorch: Please transition to use libreadline6-dev
Processing commands for cont...@bugs.debian.org: # Not including a version on RC bugs _really_ isn't helpful # Setting to the current testing / unstable version, as this # won't be changed in stable found 636188 0.2.1~pre2-3 Bug #636188 [xscorch] xscorch: Please transition to use libreadline6-dev Bug Marked as found in versions xscorch/0.2.1~pre2-3. thanks Stopping processing here. Please contact me if you need assistance. -- 636188: http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=636188 Debian Bug Tracking System Contact ow...@bugs.debian.org with problems -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-bugs-rc-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Bug#636188: xscorch: Please transition to use libreadline6-dev
retitle 636188 Please use libreadline-gplv2-dev instead of libreadline5-dev thanks On Mon, Aug 1, 2011 at 20:51, Adam D. Barratt a...@adam-barratt.org.uk wrote: # Not including a version on RC bugs _really_ isn't helpful # Setting to the current testing / unstable version, as this # won't be changed in stable found 636188 0.2.1~pre2-3 thanks On Mon, 2011-08-01 at 15:43 +0800, Aron Xu wrote: Package: xscorch Severity: serious This should have been filed with an affected version; see above. Please read again what I have written in the first message. It's not a report for your packages in the archive, but for your package on mentors.debian.net. Please transition to use libreadline6-dev instead of libreadline5-dev, the readline maintainer has said everyone should use version 6 except your package's license does not allow. Package libreadline5-dev has gone from unstable, so your package on mentors.debian.net FTBFS because missing dependency and cannot be sponsored. The copyright file of the version of xscorch currently in the archive says that the software is released under GPL-2 only. Assuming that's correct, then it's not possible to link it against the GPL-3 licensed libreadline6. Then you are still wrong, because libreadline5-dev is gone, your package FTBFS. Please check your package with pbuilder before you upload and ask for sponsoring. What you really need is libreadline-gplv2-dev, not libreadline5-dev (gone from archive), nor libreadline6-dev (license issue). Again, please check your package is buildable with pbuilder/cowbuilder or even in a plain sid chroot. As the package's maintainer, it's your responsibility to make sure all of the problems do not exist before you ask for sponsorship. Please make sure you have read and understand what I've written, if you have questions just ask back and I'll try to help. I'll be happy to sponsor your package when you have made it fit. -- Regards, Aron Xu -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-bugs-rc-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Processed: Re: Bug#636188: xscorch: Please transition to use libreadline6-dev
Processing commands for cont...@bugs.debian.org: retitle 636188 Please use libreadline-gplv2-dev instead of libreadline5-dev Bug #636188 [xscorch] xscorch: Please transition to use libreadline6-dev Changed Bug title to 'Please use libreadline-gplv2-dev instead of libreadline5-dev' from 'xscorch: Please transition to use libreadline6-dev' thanks Stopping processing here. Please contact me if you need assistance. -- 636188: http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=636188 Debian Bug Tracking System Contact ow...@bugs.debian.org with problems -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-bugs-rc-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Bug#636188: xscorch: Please transition to use libreadline6-dev
Well, I should apologize that Adam is not the maintainer of this package. But the maintainer surely has the responsibility of checking the package builds. -- Regards, Aron Xu -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-bugs-rc-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Bug#636188: xscorch: Please transition to use libreadline6-dev
On Mon, 2011-08-01 at 21:07 +0800, Aron Xu wrote: In Mon, Aug 1, 2011 at 20:51, Adam D. Barratt a...@adam-barratt.org.uk wrote: On Mon, 2011-08-01 at 15:43 +0800, Aron Xu wrote: Package: xscorch Severity: serious This should have been filed with an affected version; see above. Please read again what I have written in the first message. It's not a report for your packages in the archive, but for your package on mentors.debian.net. That's irrelevant. The bug as you filed it applies to _all versions of the package in Debian_, which is wrong and will just annoy the Release Team (as this message indicates...). Either don't use the BTS to file issues which only affect mentors.d.n packages, or use sane found versions. If the bug doesn't apply to any version currently in the archive, then please close it now and use an alternative means to contact the maintainer; the BTS is for tracking issues with packages in Debian. Also, as looking at the package for slightly longer would have shown, *I'm not the maintainer*. [...] The copyright file of the version of xscorch currently in the archive says that the software is released under GPL-2 only. Assuming that's correct, then it's not possible to link it against the GPL-3 licensed libreadline6. Then you are still wrong, because libreadline5-dev is gone, your package FTBFS. Please check your package with pbuilder before you upload and ask for sponsoring. Again, it's not my package, and I'm not wrong. And yes, libreadline5-dev is gone and many people (including at least parts of the release team) aren't overly happy about that. Please make sure you have read and understand what I've written, if you have questions just ask back and I'll try to help. I'll be happy to sponsor your package when you have made it fit. *giggle* Please also make sure you understand what I wrote. Regards, Adam -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-bugs-rc-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Bug#636188: xscorch: Please transition to use libreadline6-dev
Hi, On Mon, Aug 01, 2011 at 09:07:37PM +0800, Aron Xu wrote: retitle 636188 Please use libreadline-gplv2-dev instead of libreadline5-dev thanks I will prepare a new version using libreadline-gplv2-dev. Thank you for pointing out the license issue. Again, please check your package is buildable with pbuilder/cowbuilder or even in a plain sid chroot. As the package's maintainer, it's your responsibility to make sure all of the problems do not exist before you ask for sponsorship. I don't appreciate this comment. The package built on my sid desktop and using pbuilder on sid both i386 and amd64 yesterday. I still have the logs and here's what it said about that dep: pbuilder-satisfydepends-dummy depends on libreadline5-dev | libreadline6-dev; however: Package libreadline5-dev is not installed. Package libreadline6-dev is not installed. [...] Get: 95 http://http.us.debian.org/debian/ sid/main libreadline6-dev i386 6.2-2 [247 kB] [...] Selecting previously deselected package libreadline6-dev. Unpacking libreadline6-dev (from .../libreadline6-dev_6.2-2_amd64.deb) ... [...] dpkg-buildpackage: full upload (original source is included) You seem to have some mistaken information about pbuilder, or at least specific to your own installation of it. BTW I also ran it through lintian. Thanks, -Jacob -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-bugs-rc-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Bug#636188: xscorch: Please transition to use libreadline6-dev
On Mon, Aug 1, 2011 at 23:59, Jacob Luna Lundberg ja...@gnifty.net wrote: Hi, On Mon, Aug 01, 2011 at 09:07:37PM +0800, Aron Xu wrote: retitle 636188 Please use libreadline-gplv2-dev instead of libreadline5-dev thanks I will prepare a new version using libreadline-gplv2-dev. Thank you for pointing out the license issue. Thanks, :-) Again, please check your package is buildable with pbuilder/cowbuilder or even in a plain sid chroot. As the package's maintainer, it's your responsibility to make sure all of the problems do not exist before you ask for sponsorship. I don't appreciate this comment. The package built on my sid desktop and using pbuilder on sid both i386 and amd64 yesterday. I still have the logs and here's what it said about that dep: pbuilder-satisfydepends-dummy depends on libreadline5-dev | libreadline6-dev; however: Package libreadline5-dev is not installed. Package libreadline6-dev is not installed. [...] Get: 95 http://http.us.debian.org/debian/ sid/main libreadline6-dev i386 6.2-2 [247 kB] [...] Selecting previously deselected package libreadline6-dev. Unpacking libreadline6-dev (from .../libreadline6-dev_6.2-2_amd64.deb) ... [...] dpkg-buildpackage: full upload (original source is included) You seem to have some mistaken information about pbuilder, or at least specific to your own installation of it. BTW I also ran it through lintian. But it is true that Debian buildd only takes the first candidate. Even now you have pbuilder tested, it will eventually FTBFS on buildd if it get uploaded. When I meet this problem for the first time I argued that it was something wrong with buildd, and debian-policy said we could do this - but buildd is an exception because it needs to produce certain results from certain build-dep, so I gave up arguing. I'm not blaming you, and if my words let you think I was blaming, then I'd apologize. But what you have done in the packaging reveals some problems: As you have written libreadline5-dev | libreadline6-dev, then I assume you have the sense that there is probably license issue with libreadline6-dev, so you choose libreadline5-dev over it by default, and you keep the latter one because it might be useful for those who want to compile binary packages themselves. OK, then you need to check whether your build is correct, by running lintian *and* checking the build log at least. You have tested it with lintian already, then you forgot to check your log. IMHO checking the log can probably discover some sensitive (legal) problems and/or technical problems (for example, unusual warnings or errors, but the build system are mis-configured to not fail). So, please do it from now on. (PS: we are all aware that lintian is a piece of software, is just a tool, it can help us check errors, but that's not all we need to do.) -- Regards, Aron Xu -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-bugs-rc-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Bug#636188: xscorch: Please transition to use libreadline6-dev
Hi, On Tue, Aug 02, 2011 at 01:31:46AM +0800, Aron Xu wrote: As you have written libreadline5-dev | libreadline6-dev, then I assume you have the sense that there is probably license issue with libreadline6-dev, so you choose libreadline5-dev over it by default, and you keep the latter one because it might be useful for those who want to compile binary packages themselves. Actually, I was unaware of the license issue and don't really care what version of readline is used. XScorch works fine with both. I looked for libreadline-dev which would have been most convenient and when I didn't find it, I wrote a dep on both so I could still compile the package on older systems. The issue with the buildds using only the first dep is new to me and I really appreciate the information. I will start writing deps newest-to-oldest in my control files. OK, then you need to check whether your build is correct, by running lintian *and* checking the build log at least. You have tested it with lintian already, then you forgot to check your log. I checked the log. It built fine. I didn't see any output I considered significant. However, I wasn't aware of the GPL issue. My omniscience level has been a bit low lately. Thanks, -Jacob -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-bugs-rc-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
