Re: RFS: femmes-celebres

[Paul Wise]

Please don't send HTML mail on Debian lists:

http://www.debian.org/MailingLists/#codeofconduct

-- 
bye,
pabs

http://wiki.debian.org/PaulWise


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-mentors-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Archive: 
http://lists.debian.org/aanlktimgygv4og6omrjp23ukfdhvpl0xpam8ryjda...@mail.gmail.com

Re: RFS: httpry

[Tim Retout]

On 24 April 2010 19:33, Yann Lejeune  wrote:
> http://mentors.debian.net/debian/pool/main/h/httpry/httpry_0.1.5-1.dsc

Sorry for my lack of response... again.

You've removed 'quilt' from debian/control, but debian/rules still
contains quilt lines - sorry for not being clearer earlier. I would
take this opportunity to switch to a minimal dh7 rules file, if you
can.

I still find it odd that httpry.dirs is necessary.  You could use the
'-D' option to 'install' in the Makefile, since you're patching it
already.

I think I understand the init script argument, but I find it odd that
the program has a daemon mode at all (with a hardcoded pidfile path in
/var/run) which we're basically not supporting.  I haven't made up my
mind about it yet - you would probably have to rewrite that init
script based on the skeleton in /etc/init.d, and add an 'httpry' user
during the postinst so that you don't have to parse the config file
before you drop privileges...

-- 
Tim Retout 


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-mentors-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Archive: 
http://lists.debian.org/aanlktinef7h_mdchwbzap4amq5ipxwowjdb3v-oc9...@mail.gmail.com

Re: RFS: rush

[Tim Retout]

On 4 June 2010 10:45, Mats Erik Andersson  wrote:
> I am seeking an __active__ sponsor for this package.

I'm afraid it seems you're stuck with me. ;)  At DebConf we (the
project) shall have to discuss the sponsoring situation.

> In comparison to the first packaging attempt, the Debian
> specific documentation has been expanded, in particular
> concerning chrooted service access, and a helper program
> 'mkchroot-rush.pl' has been included in order to ease the
> population of minimal chroot directories.

There seems to be a typo in the 'Homepage' field in debian/control
compared to debian/copyright.

In debian/README.Debian, there is a mention of '/etc/rush.c' which
should probably be '.rc', and 'outcommented' should be
'commented-out'.  I would rephrase the last sentence of the long
description to 'A notification service can be implemented individually
for each provided service through the TCPMUX support found within
xinetd.

One thing I should have asked first time round is: does Debian need
another restricted shell? We've already got rssh, which seems similar.
Perhaps this merits a note in the long description as per:
http://www.debian.org/doc/manuals/developers-reference/best-pkging-practices.html#bpp-pkg-desc

-- 
Tim Retout 


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-mentors-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Archive: 
http://lists.debian.org/aanlktinuqkmfbjgrj9zrpwcd276_mbpyrgjxgkror...@mail.gmail.com

Re: RFS: netpipes (updated package)

[Tim Retout]

On 23 April 2010 18:33, Mats Erik Andersson
 wrote:
> I am looking for a sponsor for the new version 4.2-5
> of my package "netpipes".

> The upload would fix these bugs: 203290, 482399, 503341

In the reformulation of the short description, it has become a verb
phrase rather than a noun phrase. See:
http://www.debian.org/doc/manuals/developers-reference/best-pkging-practices.html#bpp-pkg-synopsis

This is my only complaint, however, so I've uploaded it.  Oh, I think
the information from README.Debian should be moved into a NEWS.Debian
file as well, in the next upload.  But that's pretty good.

-- 
Tim Retout 


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-mentors-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Archive: 
http://lists.debian.org/aanlktilpavfy7-3xnnuuy5ogckuxr9bxawg6u5z0u...@mail.gmail.com

Re: A lot of pending packages

[Thomas Goirand]

Johan Van de Wauw wrote:
> 2010/6/11 Tanguy Ortolo :
>   
>> * dokuwiki, a PHP-based wiki, that I co-maintain with a DD that has
>>  almost no time to sponsor me and suggested me to find another sponsor:
>>  such a package (PHP, web application) seems to interest nobody.
>> 
>
> Which should not really come as a surprise. First of all, not many
> people actually use packaged php applications. According to popcon,
> drupal6 has only 444 installations, with only 13 'recent' users[1].
> The number will be an underestimation as many servers won't have
> popcon installed, but still...
>
> Not many webapplications have an upstream which supports legacy
> versions, which means that it is up to the sponsor/maintainer to do
> so. While the same is true for many packages in debian, the security
> consequenses are usually more severe for a web app than for most
> desktop applications.
>
> If packages have a high chance of being hardly installed (because most
> people use upstream releases and not the debian packages, which
> happens a lot for php programs) and require a lot of work to support,
> it should be carefully considered whether we really want them in
> debian.
>
> [1]http://qa.debian.org/popcon.php?package=drupal6
>   

I don't agree with you on the reasons. The thing is, PHP applications in
Debian
aren't made to support multiple instance. The result being that it
doesn't make
sense to use them, because you wont be able to have more than a single site
with it.

If there was a move toward multiple instances using a single package, I am
quite sure that the situation would be different.

Also, yes, popcon is almost never installed on servers... The reason, IMHO,
must be that servers most of the time are setup automatically, and you don't
even see the popcon question. I wonder if it would be possible to have
popcon
debconf's answer set to yes by default! :)

Thomas


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-mentors-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Archive: http://lists.debian.org/4c13f88f.1060...@goirand.fr

Re: A lot of pending packages

[Johan Van de Wauw]

2010/6/11 Tanguy Ortolo :
> * dokuwiki, a PHP-based wiki, that I co-maintain with a DD that has
>  almost no time to sponsor me and suggested me to find another sponsor:
>  such a package (PHP, web application) seems to interest nobody.

Which should not really come as a surprise. First of all, not many
people actually use packaged php applications. According to popcon,
drupal6 has only 444 installations, with only 13 'recent' users[1].
The number will be an underestimation as many servers won't have
popcon installed, but still...

Not many webapplications have an upstream which supports legacy
versions, which means that it is up to the sponsor/maintainer to do
so. While the same is true for many packages in debian, the security
consequenses are usually more severe for a web app than for most
desktop applications.

If packages have a high chance of being hardly installed (because most
people use upstream releases and not the debian packages, which
happens a lot for php programs) and require a lot of work to support,
it should be carefully considered whether we really want them in
debian.

[1]http://qa.debian.org/popcon.php?package=drupal6


--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-mentors-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Archive: 
http://lists.debian.org/aanlktinhwrbokfddvpexmqau27zf-g9ewhzjfkhb4...@mail.gmail.com

Re: RFS: femmes-celebres

[Joachim Reichel]

Hi,

I think the quotes should be added to fortunes-fr. A seperate package for  ~100
quotes is IMHO not the right way.

A few comments for the sake of feedback and learning (but as explained above I
will not upload the package if you fix these issues).

> > I am looking for a sponsor for my package "femmes-celebres".
> >
> > * Package name: femmes-celebres

I think all fortunes modules start with "fortunes-". Since the quotes are in
French, a better name would be fortunes-femmes-celebres-fr.

> >   Version : 0.1-1
> >   Upstream Author : TUDURI Benoît
> > * URL : N/A

missing

> > * License : [fill in]

missing

> >   Section : games
> >
> > It builds these binary packages:
> > femmes-celebres - french distinguish french women quotes.

"Distinguished quotes from French women (in French)" ?

> > My motivation for maintaining this package is: To have some women
> > favorite quote. It's a pleasant stuff to learn a quote.

Can you please contact the fortunes-fr maintainer and ask him to include your
quotes?

Moreover, the debian/ directory still contains lots of the template texts,
comments that do not apply for your package, etc. Please clean that up.

Lintian thinks the version is an NMU. Not sure why, maybe because you use
different email adresses in changelog and control.

There are also the following warnings/errors (partly mentioned already above).
Please see the lintian documentation for their meaning.

W: femmes-celebres source: debhelper-but-no-misc-depends femmes-celebres
W: femmes-celebres source: binary-arch-rules-but-pkg-is-arch-indep
W: femmes-celebres source: out-of-date-standards-version 3.8.1 (current is 
3.8.4)
W: femmes-celebres: possible-unindented-list-in-extended-description
E: femmes-celebres: helper-templates-in-copyright
W: femmes-celebres: copyright-has-url-from-dh_make-boilerplate
E: femmes-celebres: copyright-contains-dh_make-todo-boilerplate
W: femmes-celebres: readme-debian-contains-debmake-template
W: femmes-celebres: new-package-should-close-itp-bug
W: femmes-celebres: wrong-bug-number-in-closes l3:#

Joachim


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-mentors-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Archive: http://lists.debian.org/4c13b91b.9010...@gmx.de

Re: RFS: emu8051

[Bhavani Shankar R]

On Sat, Jun 12, 2010 at 7:40 PM, Johan Van de Wauw <
johan.vandew...@gmail.com> wrote:

> I am not a devian developer, so I can not sponser your upload, however
> here are some comments:
> debian/control: XSBC-original maintainer is a field only used by
> ubuntu, remove it
> section: I would use 'Electronics'
>
> debian/copyright:
> your last lines read:
> License: GPL-2
>  The Debian packaging is hereby placed in the GPL-2 (no rights
>  reserved).
> I'm not a lawyer, but I would either put your debian packaging under
> the GPL-2 or release it  in the public domain (no rights reserved).
> Now they conflict.
>
> build system:
> consider using debhelper 7  instead of cdbs, as this is what most new
> packages use. The minimal rule should work fine
> /usr/share/doc/debhelper/examples/rules.tiny
>
> src/Makefile.am consider adding --as-needed to your link flag when
> using gtk (send this upstream)
> 17:  emu8051_LDADD = $(GTK_LIBS) -Wl,--as-needed
>
> Lastly, my most important comment: I recommend you to join the
> pkg-electronics team, and to request sponsorship there:
> http://wiki.debian.org/PkgElectronics
>
>
Hello all again!

Based on the above review here is the updated dsc

http://mentors.debian.net/debian/pool/main/e/emu8051/emu8051_1.1.0-1.dsc

Regards
-- 
Bhavani Shankar.R
https://launchpad.net/~bhavi, a proud ubuntu community  member.
What matters in life is application of mind!,
It makes great sense to have some common sense..!

Re: RFS: emu8051

[Bhavani Shankar R]

On Sat, Jun 12, 2010 at 7:40 PM, Johan Van de Wauw <
johan.vandew...@gmail.com> wrote:

> I am not a devian developer, so I can not sponser your upload, however
> here are some comments:
> debian/control: XSBC-original maintainer is a field only used by
> ubuntu, remove it
> section: I would use 'Electronics'
>
> Hello Johan,
This package was initially packaged in ubuntu so when porting to debian I
added a user defined field called Original-Maintainer as per policy to
reflect that
Refer:
http://www.debian.org/doc/debian-policy/ch-controlfields.html#s5.7

and I will update the section field thanks!



> debian/copyright:
> your last lines read:
> License: GPL-2
>  The Debian packaging is hereby placed in the GPL-2 (no rights
>  reserved).
> I'm not a lawyer, but I would either put your debian packaging under
> the GPL-2 or release it  in the public domain (no rights reserved).
> Now they conflict.
>

I ll put it under public domain! thanks

>
> build system:
> consider using debhelper 7  instead of cdbs, as this is what most new
> packages use. The minimal rule should work fine
> /usr/share/doc/debhelper/examples/rules.tiny
>
>I ll switch over and upload!


> src/Makefile.am consider adding --as-needed to your link flag when
> using gtk (send this upstream)
> 17:  emu8051_LDADD = $(GTK_LIBS) -Wl,--as-needed
>
> thanks for the catch ll contact the upstream maintainer


> Lastly, my most important comment: I recommend you to join the
> pkg-electronics team, and to request sponsorship there:
> http://wiki.debian.org/PkgElectronics
>
>
> Sure! thanks for the review!

>
> On Thu, Jun 10, 2010 at 6:47 PM, Bhavani Shankar R 
> wrote:
> > Dear mentors,
> >
> > I am looking for a sponsor for my package "emu8051".
> >
> > * Package name: emu8051
> >  Version : 1.1.0-1
> >  Upstream Authors : Hugo Villeneuve ,
> >   Jonathan St-André 
> > * URL :  http://www.hugovil.com/en/emu8051/index.html
> > * License : GPL-2
> >  Section : x11
> >
> > It builds these binary packages:
> > emu8051- Emulator and simulator for 8051 microcontrollers
> >
> > The upload would fix these bugs: 585446
> >
> > My motivation for maintaining this package is: I m an electrical engineer
> by
> > profession and I ve experience working on Intel 8051 and ARM
> > Microcontrollers and since the usage of the program is simple(It loads
> Hex
> > files and it executes the program continuously till the desired output is
> > got) and since this is my specific area of interest I would like to
> maintain
> > this package in debian.
> >
> > The package can be found on mentors.debian.net:
> > - URL: http://mentors.debian.net/debian/pool/main/e/emu8051
> > - Source repository: deb-src http://mentors.debian.net/debian unstable
> main
> > contrib non-free
> > - dget
> > http://mentors.debian.net/debian/pool/main/e/emu8051/emu8051_1.1.0-1.dsc
> >
> > I would be glad if someone uploaded this package for me.
> >
> > Regards
> >
> > --
> > Bhavani Shankar.R
> > https://launchpad.net/~bhavi , a proud
> ubuntu community  member.
> > What matters in life is application of mind!,
> > It makes great sense to have some common sense..!
> >
> >
>



-- 
Bhavani Shankar.R
https://launchpad.net/~bhavi, a proud ubuntu community  member.
What matters in life is application of mind!,
It makes great sense to have some common sense..!

Re: RFS: emu8051

[Johan Van de Wauw]

I am not a devian developer, so I can not sponser your upload, however
here are some comments:
debian/control: XSBC-original maintainer is a field only used by
ubuntu, remove it
section: I would use 'Electronics'

debian/copyright:
your last lines read:
License: GPL-2
 The Debian packaging is hereby placed in the GPL-2 (no rights
 reserved).
I'm not a lawyer, but I would either put your debian packaging under
the GPL-2 or release it  in the public domain (no rights reserved).
Now they conflict.

build system:
consider using debhelper 7  instead of cdbs, as this is what most new
packages use. The minimal rule should work fine
/usr/share/doc/debhelper/examples/rules.tiny

src/Makefile.am consider adding --as-needed to your link flag when
using gtk (send this upstream)
17:  emu8051_LDADD = $(GTK_LIBS) -Wl,--as-needed

Lastly, my most important comment: I recommend you to join the
pkg-electronics team, and to request sponsorship there:
http://wiki.debian.org/PkgElectronics

Johan

On Thu, Jun 10, 2010 at 6:47 PM, Bhavani Shankar R  wrote:
> Dear mentors,
>
> I am looking for a sponsor for my package "emu8051".
>
> * Package name    : emu8051
>  Version         : 1.1.0-1
>  Upstream Authors : Hugo Villeneuve ,
>   Jonathan St-André 
> * URL             :  http://www.hugovil.com/en/emu8051/index.html
> * License         : GPL-2
>  Section         : x11
>
> It builds these binary packages:
> emu8051    - Emulator and simulator for 8051 microcontrollers
>
> The upload would fix these bugs: 585446
>
> My motivation for maintaining this package is: I m an electrical engineer by
> profession and I ve experience working on Intel 8051 and ARM
> Microcontrollers and since the usage of the program is simple(It loads Hex
> files and it executes the program continuously till the desired output is
> got) and since this is my specific area of interest I would like to maintain
> this package in debian.
>
> The package can be found on mentors.debian.net:
> - URL: http://mentors.debian.net/debian/pool/main/e/emu8051
> - Source repository: deb-src http://mentors.debian.net/debian unstable main
> contrib non-free
> - dget
> http://mentors.debian.net/debian/pool/main/e/emu8051/emu8051_1.1.0-1.dsc
>
> I would be glad if someone uploaded this package for me.
>
> Regards
>
> --
> Bhavani Shankar.R
> https://launchpad.net/~bhavi, a proud ubuntu community  member.
> What matters in life is application of mind!,
> It makes great sense to have some common sense..!
>
>


--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-mentors-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Archive: 
http://lists.debian.org/aanlktilmvh8g57gftppjxguy399p5txs8l1xggfmh...@mail.gmail.com

Re: A lot of pending packages

[George Danchev]

Quoting "Klaus Grue" :

Perhaps maintainers should stand up and review some packages of  
their peers?


Absolutely. This already happens a little bit. It would be excellent
if more people could do it.


Maybe my experience with Fedora and Cygwin could be of interest. As  
a new packager, I made my first package ('logiweb') and submitted it  
to Debian, Fedora, and Cygwin:


Aug 2009 Submitted http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=543550
Sep 2009 Submitted https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=523715
Mar 2010 Package pushed to Fedora stable
May 2010 Sent ITP to Cygwin
May 2010 Package uploaded to Cygwin

Sep-Mar I corrected the package under guidance of a Fedora sponsor  
(thanks). I was also lucky enough that a DD looked at my Debian  
package and gave guidance (thanks). But it seems that DD's are  
overloaded. At least my package is not in Debian yet.


Once my Fedora package was in shape, I was asked to demonstrate my  
technical skills by either preparing one more Fedora package or do a  
pre-review of some other package. So I chose to do a pre-review.


I picked a package, but somebody else was faster, and the package  
was processed before I could get started. Then I shortlisted ten  
packages
I found I was competent to pre-review, waited a few days, three  
packages were taken, picked one of the remaining packages, assigned  
it to myself, and did the pre-review. When my pre-review was  
accepted by my sponsor, my package was uploaded.


Once accepted in Fedora, uploading to Cygwin went very smoothly (thanks).

So this is my experience with Fedora: When I came with my package,  
the Fedora community did something for me (reviewed the package)  
then required me to do something for them (do a pre-review), and the  
package was accepted. That seems quite fair.


Furthermore, Fedora had a list of packages waiting for review, and  
it was easy to find one to pick.


I am not saying Fedora is ideal. On a Fedora mailing list, I just  
saw an invitation to come and celebrate the one-year anniversary of  
a Fedora review request.


My point, however, is that having some sort of formalized way in  
which maintainers can unload DDs could be a good thing.


This is really nice experience, however I strongly believe that all of  
that is also possible with Debian in its current form. You are allowed  
to do any tech work DDs are allowed, except uploading, voting and  
reading -private list until you gain DD (or resp. DM status), and it  
would be helpful indeed. Simply reviewing and/or uploading packages  
for the sake of it does not seem very efficient way to spend human  
time and archive space to me, otoh helping neglected packages or  
co-reviwing new hot or interesting packages makes sense and is  
absolutely possible, but then again people have different interests  
sometimes, so finding a match could be an issue, and it actually is  
most of the time.



--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-mentors-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Archive: 
http://lists.debian.org/20100612161203.93483yyfen7el...@webmail.spnet.net

Re: RFS: 'snap2' rsync-based backup program with GUI

[Norbert Preining]

On Fr, 11 Jun 2010, Russ Allbery wrote:
> I don't think this has the implication that it sounds like you believe it
> has.  Suppose that you're packaging something where upstream includes a

Thanks Russ, I completely agree. In fact I ask upstream to not ship
debian.

I only wanted to make clear that it is *possible* and *permissible*
that the .orig.tar.gz ships a debian/ directory, against those strange
creatures crying out loud "No that is against policy" without checking
it actually.

> So it really has very little impact on your workflow (although the
> packaging helpers need to correctly handle importing new upstream source,

I agree.

Best wishes

Norbert

Norbert Preiningprein...@{jaist.ac.jp, logic.at, debian.org}
JAIST, Japan TeX Live & Debian Developer
DSA: 0x09C5B094   fp: 14DF 2E6C 0307 BE6D AD76  A9C0 D2BF 4AA3 09C5 B094

`In those days spirits were brave, the stakes were high,
men were REAL men, women were REAL women, and small furry
creatures from Alpha Centauri were REAL small furry
creatures from Aplha Centauri.'
 --- The Book getting all nostalgic.
 --- Douglas Adams, The Hitchhikers Guide to the Galaxy


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-mentors-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Archive: http://lists.debian.org/20100612131336.gk13...@gamma.logic.tuwien.ac.at

Re: RFS: 'snap2' rsync-based backup program with GUI

[Norbert Preining]

On Sa, 12 Jun 2010, Bernhard R. Link wrote:
> No, it is exactly correct and one of the important improvements of v3
> that the .orig.tar.gz's debian/ dir is completely removed.

Contraticted, I agree that v3 has lots of improvements, that is not
one of it.

Wasn't there *one* point in the list of improvements that other
people, not Debian, can easily see what are the changes done *by*Debian*,
while we are now incorporating all debian related thnigs into it.

Anyway, *I* don't care, but I keep upstream debian dirs if they are there,
and try to convince them to *not* ship them and I will care for the rest,
but if they ship them, so it be.

Best wishes

Norbert

Norbert Preiningprein...@{jaist.ac.jp, logic.at, debian.org}
JAIST, Japan TeX Live & Debian Developer
DSA: 0x09C5B094   fp: 14DF 2E6C 0307 BE6D AD76  A9C0 D2BF 4AA3 09C5 B094

BEALINGS
The unsavoury parts of a moat which a knight has to pour out of his
armour after being the victim of an araglin (q.v.). In medieval
Flanders, soup made from bealins was a very slightly sought-after
delicacy.
--- Douglas Adams, The Meaning of Liff


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-mentors-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Archive: http://lists.debian.org/20100612131128.gj13...@gamma.logic.tuwien.ac.at

RFS: femmes-celebres

[benoît tuduri]

Dear mentors,

I am looking for a sponsor for my package "femmes-celebres".

* Package name: femmes-celebres
  Version : 0.1-1
  Upstream Author : TUDURI Benoît
* URL : N/A
* License : [fill in]
  Section : games

It builds these binary packages:
femmes-celebres - french distinguish french women quotes.

My motivation for maintaining this package is: To have some women
favorite quote. It's a pleasant stuff to learn a quote.

The package can be found on mentors.debian.net:
- URL: http://mentors.debian.net/debian/pool/main/f/femmes-celebres
- Source repository: deb-src http://mentors.debian.net/debian unstable
main contrib non-free
- dget 
http://mentors.debian.net/debian/pool/main/f/femmes-celebres/femmes-celebres_0.1-1.dsc

I would be glad if someone uploaded this package for me.

Kind regards
 TUDURI Benoît

Re: A lot of pending packages

[Umang Varma]

On 06/12/2010 03:31 PM, Klaus Grue wrote:
> So this is my experience with Fedora: When I came with my package, the
> Fedora community did something for me (reviewed the package) then
> required me to do something for them (do a pre-review), and the package
> was accepted. That seems quite fair.
> 
> Furthermore, Fedora had a list of packages waiting for review, and it
> was easy to find one to pick.
> 
> I am not saying Fedora is ideal. On a Fedora mailing list, I just saw an
> invitation to come and celebrate the one-year anniversary of a Fedora
> review request.
> 
> My point, however, is that having some sort of formalized way in which
> maintainers can unload DDs could be a good thing.

I don't know anything about packaging for Fedora, so I cannot compare,
but I'll point out that reviewing a package requires a far greater
understanding than packaging your own software does. So, I do not
consider myself capable of reviewing someone else's package, even though
I feel capable of changing things in my own package.

I really appreciate the work that DD's here do and I follow d-mentors
and d-python to whatever extent my time and capabilities allow. I don't
see myself reviewing a package unless I get the hang of the details
(maybe by examining every RFS and try to understand the DD's review for
a good amount of time).

I'd imagine there are other newbies who've been able to get the hang of
packaging much faster and are able to make far more contributions while
others, who just want to get one package uploaded, don't follow
d-mentors after their review was completed. So the various levels of
interest and capability, I feel, don't make it possible to make a
review-in-return required.

Now I don't know whether this is what you were suggesting, but d-mentors
could encourage non-DDs to try their hand at mini-reviews where basic
things are checked and a DD could then do an independent review. By
comparing the reviews newbies can learn to review packages and
contribute later on.

Umang


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-mentors-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Archive: http://lists.debian.org/4c137c63.8070...@gmail.com

Re: A lot of pending packages

[Klaus Grue]

Perhaps maintainers should stand up and review some packages of their peers?


Absolutely. This already happens a little bit. It would be excellent
if more people could do it.


Maybe my experience with Fedora and Cygwin could be of interest. As a new 
packager, I made my first package ('logiweb') and submitted it to Debian, 
Fedora, and Cygwin:


Aug 2009 Submitted http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=543550
Sep 2009 Submitted https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=523715
Mar 2010 Package pushed to Fedora stable
May 2010 Sent ITP to Cygwin
May 2010 Package uploaded to Cygwin

Sep-Mar I corrected the package under guidance of a Fedora sponsor 
(thanks). I was also lucky enough that a DD looked at my Debian package 
and gave guidance (thanks). But it seems that DD's are overloaded. At 
least my package is not in Debian yet.


Once my Fedora package was in shape, I was asked to demonstrate my 
technical skills by either preparing one more Fedora package or do a 
pre-review of some other package. So I chose to do a pre-review.


I picked a package, but somebody else was faster, and the package was 
processed before I could get started. Then I shortlisted ten packages
I found I was competent to pre-review, waited a few days, three packages 
were taken, picked one of the remaining packages, assigned it to myself, 
and did the pre-review. When my pre-review was accepted by my sponsor, my 
package was uploaded.


Once accepted in Fedora, uploading to Cygwin went very smoothly (thanks).

So this is my experience with Fedora: When I came with my package, the 
Fedora community did something for me (reviewed the package) then required 
me to do something for them (do a pre-review), and the package was 
accepted. That seems quite fair.


Furthermore, Fedora had a list of packages waiting for review, and it was 
easy to find one to pick.


I am not saying Fedora is ideal. On a Fedora mailing list, I just saw an 
invitation to come and celebrate the one-year anniversary of a Fedora 
review request.


My point, however, is that having some sort of formalized way in which 
maintainers can unload DDs could be a good thing.


Cheers,
Klaus


--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-mentors-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Archive: http://lists.debian.org/pine.lnx.4.64.1006121054230.31...@tyr.diku.dk

Re: RFS: 'snap2' rsync-based backup program with GUI

[Bernhard R. Link]

* Thomas Goirand  [100612 07:54]:
> I am quite sure that I read it somewhere, however, I can't find it again.

It was more important in the past. Since there is the version 3 source
format, an debian/ directory in the upstream tarball is only unecessary
and no longer harmful. So no longer any need to have it renamed (unless
you do not use v3).

Bernhard R. Link


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-mentors-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Archive: 
http://lists.debian.org/20100612094708.gb11...@pcpool00.mathematik.uni-freiburg.de

Re: RFS: 'snap2' rsync-based backup program with GUI

[Bernhard R. Link]

* Norbert Preining  [100612 06:49]:
> > One of the ways dpkg-source v3 differs from dpkg-source v1 is that any
> > debian/ directory in the orig.tar.gz is removed before the
> > debian.tar.gz is unpacked. So debian.tar.gz cannot be empty and the
> > upstream debian/ directory if any is irrelevant.
>
> That is not compliant with what it *SHOULD* do. If there is a debian
> dir in upstream (again, anyone showing me the policy point forbidding
> that) then files in their should be replaced or whatever, but
> it is not correct (IMHO) that these files are removed.

No, it is exactly correct and one of the important improvements of v3
that the .orig.tar.gz's debian/ dir is completely removed.

Otherwise one either gets problems with files that by their sheer
existance confuse helper scripts you cannot easily remove
or needing some absurd way to specify how to remove them.
If the contents of .debian.tar.gz becomes the contents of debian/
you have total control in an easy to understand way.

Bernhard R. Link
-- 
"Never contain programs so few bugs, as when no debugging tools are available!"
Niklaus Wirth


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-mentors-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Archive: 
http://lists.debian.org/20100612094254.ga11...@pcpool00.mathematik.uni-freiburg.de