Re: Bug in frozen package - aim at backports/volatile?
Hi Stefan, On Mittwoch, 6. Oktober 2010, Stefan Ott wrote: I have a small question: I'm aware that Debian is currently frozen, thus no new features can be added to squeeze. However, I maintain a package [1] (I'm also the upstream maintainer) which has an annoying but non-critical bug. The package is a parser for TV show episode information and one of the sources recently changed some minor detail in their data which messes up my tool's output. So this makes it an important bug (a bug which has a major effect on the usability of a package, without rendering it completely unusable to everyone) which even qualifies for an update in stable (*). So if the patch is small and straightforward, getting it into testing via unstable, should be fine too. (Obviously the release team might decide they really want to concentrate on rc-bugs only atm and fix this bug later, once stable is released...) cheers, Holger (*) according to the rules which are in effect for lenny now. Dunno how squeeze will be:-) signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
Re: Four days
On Tue, 5 Oct 2010, Matthew Palmer wrote: To clarify: the intended point of this proposal is to solve the perceived problem that DDs don't sponsor packages because they're concerned that they'll end up taking responsibility for a package if the maintainer ups and leaves? I don't actually see that as a problem. There are simple ways to deal with orphaned packages, regardless of the way the upload was made, and they work. If a package I sponsor is abandoned by the maintainer, it gets NMUed, orphaned and assigned to debian-qa like any other, and is then available for adoption. The variant of this problem I do see, however, is the uploading of surely-soon-to-be-unmaintained low-quality or near-duplicate packages, clogging up the archive and making extra work for debian-qa et al. *That* problem isn't going to be solved by changing the maintainer, it's only going to be solved by not uploading the surely-soon-to-be-unmaintained low-quality or near-duplicate packages in the first place. Matthew -- sounds like you've identified a commonly-asked question that has an answer. Would you (or someone else on the list) be willing to add that to the For Sponsors... section of http://wiki.debian.org/DebianMentorsFaq ? That way we can help prospective sponsors feel more confident that it's worth their time to sponsor packages. -- Asheesh. -- You will be awarded the Nobel Peace Prize... posthumously. -- 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/alpine.deb.2.00.1010061109230.6...@rose.makesad.us
Re: Four days
On Tue, 5 Oct 2010 16:30:37 +1100, Matthew Palmer wrote: One is to use the mentors mailing list as the maintainer for mentee packages. That way the burden of quickly orphaned packages is dispersed over the whole set of mentors rather than just one. Perhaps that will encourage more DD participation since they won't stick themselves with a lot of orphaned packages. To clarify: the intended point of this proposal is to solve the perceived problem that DDs don't sponsor packages because they're concerned that they'll end up taking responsibility for a package if the maintainer ups and leaves? I don't actually see that as a problem. There are simple ways to deal with orphaned packages, regardless of the way the upload was made, and they work. If a package I sponsor is abandoned by the maintainer, it gets NMUed, orphaned and assigned to debian-qa like any other, and is then available for adoption. OK, I've at least seen Paul Wise state this excuse as the reason to avoid sponsoring packages, and I would bet there is a lot more of that sentiment out there, just not expressed here. If you can mitigate that concern via better awareness about the orphaning process, then I think that would be great. Best wishes, Mike -- 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/20101006112051.8b0748bc.michael.s.gilb...@gmail.com
Re: Four days
Le Wed, Oct 06, 2010 at 11:08:05AM -0400, Asheesh Laroia a écrit : It's a really good idea... maybe I should actually ask my sponsorees to review other people's packages on the debian-mentors list as a sort of social trade -- I upload if you join the review team. Hi all, This reminds me a site that I discover today in the Dreamhost newsletter, http://feedbackroulette.com/. I have not found source code, but the idea is simple and could be translated to an anonymous package review system. Perhaps that could be implemented with ikiwiki ? (http://joey.kitenet.net/blog/entry/anonymous_git_push_to_ikiwiki/) Otherwise, if anonymicity is not necessary for the review, a simple system could be implemented with WNPP bugs and usertags. You can have a look at http://wiki.debian.org/CopyrightReview for a (not so successful) example. Thank you for your efforts to improve debian-mentors. I am sure that everybody has good intentions, but with such a high traffic it is just too easy to lose momentum. Have a nice day, -- Charles Plessy Tsurumi, Kanagawa, Japan -- 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/20101006164607.ga12...@merveille.plessy.net
RFS: bareftp (NMU, RC bugfix)
Dear mentors, I am looking for a sponsor for the new version 0.3.4-1.1 of my package bareftp. It builds these binary packages: bareftp- FTP client for GNOME The package appears to be lintian clean. The upload would fix these bugs: 598284 security related bug, CVE-2010-3350 The package can be found on mentors.debian.net: - URL: http://mentors.debian.net/debian/pool/main/b/bareftp - Source repository: deb-src http://mentors.debian.net/debian unstable main contrib non-free - dget http://mentors.debian.net/debian/pool/main/b/bareftp/bareftp_0.3.4-1.1.dsc -- 1AE0 322E B8F7 4717 BDEA BF1D 44BB 1BA7 9F6C 6333 signature.asc Description: Digital signature
RFS: disco
Dear mentors, I am looking for a sponsor for my package disco. * Package name: disco Version : 0.3.1-1 Upstream Author : Ville Tuulos tuu...@gmail.com * URL : http://github.com/tuulos/disco/downloads * License : GPL-2+ Section : admin It builds these binary packages: disco-doc - A distributed computing framework - documentation disco-master - A distributed computing framework - master disco-node - A distributed computing framework - node python-disco - A distributed computing framework - client python module python-discodb - An efficient, immutable, persistent mapping object Disco python-discodex - Distributed indices for Disco The package appears to be lintian clean. The upload would fix these bugs: 535891 This is an interesting alternative to Apache hadoop Map/Reduce that is actively developing. I would really like to read a review if there is something that could be done better. The package can be found on mentors.debian.net: - URL: http://mentors.debian.net/debian/pool/main/d/disco - Source repository: deb-src http://mentors.debian.net/debian unstable main contrib non-free - dget http://mentors.debian.net/debian/pool/main/d/disco/disco_0.3.1-1.dsc I would be glad if someone uploaded this package for me. Kind regards Janos Guljas -- 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/aanlktikp+qfbkkfmggcn6rk4qzsnylv0bkpszjnmq...@mail.gmail.com
Re: Four days
On Wed, Oct 06, 2010 at 11:11:49AM -0400, Asheesh Laroia wrote: On Tue, 5 Oct 2010, Matthew Palmer wrote: To clarify: the intended point of this proposal is to solve the perceived problem that DDs don't sponsor packages because they're concerned that they'll end up taking responsibility for a package if the maintainer ups and leaves? I don't actually see that as a problem. There are simple ways to deal with orphaned packages, regardless of the way the upload was made, and they work. If a package I sponsor is abandoned by the maintainer, it gets NMUed, orphaned and assigned to debian-qa like any other, and is then available for adoption. The variant of this problem I do see, however, is the uploading of surely-soon-to-be-unmaintained low-quality or near-duplicate packages, clogging up the archive and making extra work for debian-qa et al. *That* problem isn't going to be solved by changing the maintainer, it's only going to be solved by not uploading the surely-soon-to-be-unmaintained low-quality or near-duplicate packages in the first place. Matthew -- sounds like you've identified a commonly-asked question that has an answer. Would you (or someone else on the list) be willing to add that to the For Sponsors... section of http://wiki.debian.org/DebianMentorsFaq ? I think I've had my fill of FAQ maintenance. Someone else can do it. - Matt -- 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/20101006194118.ga11...@hezmatt.org
Re: Four days
Le Thu, Oct 07, 2010 at 06:41:18AM +1100, Matthew Palmer a écrit : On Wed, Oct 06, 2010 at 11:11:49AM -0400, Asheesh Laroia wrote: in the first place. Matthew -- sounds like you've identified a commonly-asked question that has an answer. Would you (or someone else on the list) be willing to add that to the For Sponsors... section of http://wiki.debian.org/DebianMentorsFaq ? I think I've had my fill of FAQ maintenance. Someone else can do it. Hi all, perhaps the list's description, that still points at http://people.d.o/~mpalmer, could be updated as well? I have not figured out if this is done through a bug on lists.d.o or by modifying a WML file somewhere… Have a nice day, -- Charles Plessy Debian Med packaging team, http://www.debian.org/devel/debian-med Tsurumi, Kanagawa, Japan -- 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/20101007001106.gb28...@merveille.plessy.net
Re: Review of gnome-gmail
Thanks for the review, and the sponsorship offer. I'll work the issues, and continue this offline when it's ready. On Tue, Oct 5, 2010 at 7:13 AM, Michael Tautschnig m...@debian.org wrote: Hi Niels, hi list, [...] Thanks for your interest in Debian. It looks like you have not received any feedback on nor found a sponsor for your package yet. I have spent some time reviewing your package and got a few comments for you, which I hope you find useful. Please note that I am not a Debian Developer (DD), so I cannot sponsor your package even if you address all my comments/remarks. Also neither python nor GNOME is my strong suit, so there are possibly some python/GNOME specific things that I have missed in my review. I think this is a prime example of how things could work, ideally. There is absolutely no need for reviews to be only done by DDs! In fact, I think there already was a proposal (I couldn't dig it up in a brief search, though) that for each RFS people should do a review of someone else's RFS/package. Again, no need to be a DD to do this. All you need a DD for is *sponsoring*. Surely any sponsor will not upload the package without doing another brief review, but this one will really take a lot less time. [...] (very detailed and hopefully helpful review) @David: Once all the issues reported by Niels are fixed, I'd offer to do the sponsoring. Please ping me via private mail, should I miss your email to the list. Best regards, Michael
Re: Bug in frozen package - aim at backports/volatile?
On Wed, Oct 6, 2010 at 13:15, Holger Levsen hol...@layer-acht.org wrote: Hi Stefan, On Mittwoch, 6. Oktober 2010, Stefan Ott wrote: I have a small question: I'm aware that Debian is currently frozen, thus no new features can be added to squeeze. However, I maintain a package [1] (I'm also the upstream maintainer) which has an annoying but non-critical bug. The package is a parser for TV show episode information and one of the sources recently changed some minor detail in their data which messes up my tool's output. So this makes it an important bug (a bug which has a major effect on the usability of a package, without rendering it completely unusable to everyone) which even qualifies for an update in stable (*). So if the patch is small and straightforward, getting it into testing via unstable, should be fine too. (Obviously the release team might decide they really want to concentrate on rc-bugs only atm and fix this bug later, once stable is released...) Okay, thanks Boyd and Holger for your answers, I'll try to get it into squeeze then. cheers -- Stefan Ott http://www.ott.net/ You are not Grey Squirrel? -- 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/aanlktimklyrn-o=cyfaxmzx-sjtonmkay3fr2fzkh...@mail.gmail.com
