Bug#799268: RFS: ck/1.6.2 [ITP]
Package: sponsorship-requests Severity: wishlist Dear mentors, I am looking for a sponsor for my package "ck" * Package name: ck Version : 1.6.2 Upstream Author : Grigori Fursin * URL : http://github.com/ctuning/ck * License : BSD-3-clause Section : python It builds those binary packages: python-ck - Collective Knowledge Framework to share and reuse research artifacts (Python 2) python3-ck - Collective Knowledge Framework to share and reuse research artifacts (Python 3) To access further information about this package, please visit the following URL: http://mentors.debian.net/package/ck Alternatively, one can download the package with dget using this command: dget -x http://mentors.debian.net/debian/pool/main/c/ck/ck_1.6.2.dsc More information about hello can be obtained from http://github.com/ctuning/ck/wiki . Regards, Grigori Fursin
Bug#799268: RFS: ck/1.6.2 [ITP]
On 17/09/15 11:43, Grigori Fursin wrote: Package: sponsorship-requests Severity: wishlist Dear mentors, I am looking for a sponsor for my package "ck" * Package name: ck Version : 1.6.2 Upstream Author : Grigori Fursin * URL : http://github.com/ctuning/ck * License : BSD-3-clause Section : python It builds those binary packages: python-ck - Collective Knowledge Framework to share and reuse research artifacts (Python 2) python3-ck - Collective Knowledge Framework to share and reuse research artifacts (Python 3) To access further information about this package, please visit the following URL: http://mentors.debian.net/package/ck Alternatively, one can download the package with dget using this command: dget -x http://mentors.debian.net/debian/pool/main/c/ck/ck_1.6.2.dsc More information about hello can be obtained from http://github.com/ctuning/ck/wiki . Regards, Grigori Fursin Since this is a pure Python package, may I suggest to rename the source package to "python-ck" instead of "ck"? Kind regards, Ghislain
Bug#799268: RFS: ck/1.6.2 [ITP]
You can delete it and retitle this bug report [1] with the new source package name. [1] https://wiki.debian.org/HowtoUseBTS Ghislain On 17/09/15 12:37, Grigori Fursin wrote: Hi Ghislain, Thanks a lot for quick check! I renamed source package to python-ck and uploaded it: https://mentors.debian.net/package/python-ck However, what should I do with the previous package? Should I delete it, or should I just put a note with a link to a new package? Thanks a lot, Grigori -Original Message- From: Ghislain Vaillant Sent: Thursday, September 17, 2015 1:09 PM To: Grigori Fursin ; 799...@bugs.debian.org Subject: Re: Bug#799268: RFS: ck/1.6.2 [ITP] On 17/09/15 11:43, Grigori Fursin wrote: Package: sponsorship-requests Severity: wishlist Dear mentors, I am looking for a sponsor for my package "ck" * Package name: ck Version : 1.6.2 Upstream Author : Grigori Fursin * URL : http://github.com/ctuning/ck * License : BSD-3-clause Section : python It builds those binary packages: python-ck - Collective Knowledge Framework to share and reuse research artifacts (Python 2) python3-ck - Collective Knowledge Framework to share and reuse research artifacts (Python 3) To access further information about this package, please visit the following URL: http://mentors.debian.net/package/ck Alternatively, one can download the package with dget using this command: dget -x http://mentors.debian.net/debian/pool/main/c/ck/ck_1.6.2.dsc More information about hello can be obtained from http://github.com/ctuning/ck/wiki . Regards, Grigori Fursin Since this is a pure Python package, may I suggest to rename the source package to "python-ck" instead of "ck"? Kind regards, Ghislain
Bug#799268: RFS: ck/1.6.2 [ITP]
Hi Ghislain, Thanks a lot for quick check! I renamed source package to python-ck and uploaded it: https://mentors.debian.net/package/python-ck However, what should I do with the previous package? Should I delete it, or should I just put a note with a link to a new package? Thanks a lot, Grigori -Original Message- From: Ghislain Vaillant Sent: Thursday, September 17, 2015 1:09 PM To: Grigori Fursin ; 799...@bugs.debian.org Subject: Re: Bug#799268: RFS: ck/1.6.2 [ITP] On 17/09/15 11:43, Grigori Fursin wrote: Package: sponsorship-requests Severity: wishlist Dear mentors, I am looking for a sponsor for my package "ck" * Package name: ck Version : 1.6.2 Upstream Author : Grigori Fursin * URL : http://github.com/ctuning/ck * License : BSD-3-clause Section : python It builds those binary packages: python-ck - Collective Knowledge Framework to share and reuse research artifacts (Python 2) python3-ck - Collective Knowledge Framework to share and reuse research artifacts (Python 3) To access further information about this package, please visit the following URL: http://mentors.debian.net/package/ck Alternatively, one can download the package with dget using this command: dget -x http://mentors.debian.net/debian/pool/main/c/ck/ck_1.6.2.dsc More information about hello can be obtained from http://github.com/ctuning/ck/wiki . Regards, Grigori Fursin Since this is a pure Python package, may I suggest to rename the source package to "python-ck" instead of "ck"? Kind regards, Ghislain
Bug#799268: RFS: ck/1.6.2 [ITP]
On 17/09/15 at 12:43 +0200, Grigori Fursin wrote: > Package: sponsorship-requests > Severity: wishlist > > Dear mentors, > > I am looking for a sponsor for my package "ck" > > * Package name: ck > Version : 1.6.2 > Upstream Author : Grigori Fursin > * URL : http://github.com/ctuning/ck > * License : BSD-3-clause > Section : python Hi, Quick (and probably incomplete) review: Must be fixed: - Given that this software is not specific to Debian, and publishes releases on its homepage, this should not be a native package. instead, its version should be of the form 1.6.2-1, 1.6.2-2, so that the Debian revision (the part after the '-') can be changed when packaging changes are made, without making a new upstream release. - I'm not familiar with python packaging, but when building this package, I only get a python2 package (and no python3 package). There's something wrong here. I wonder if it's related to the fact that the version of python-stdeb that you seem to be using (according to the headers in say debian/rules) is very old. Given that Debian packages are uploaded targetting Debian 'unstable', it's better to do Debian development in unstable or testing (possibly in a chroot). Should probably be fixed: - If I understand ck correctly, it's more an application than a library: users are not really exposed to the fact that it's written in python, and the python lib is not supposed to be used by third parties (it can be used in ipython, but the target is not really to build a third party application on top of it). If that's correct, then it should not be packaged like a python library, but more like an application (that happens to be written in python). - there's another problem: namespace pollution in few-characters commands. It's usually a bad practice to name something (that is not a historical unix tool) with 1 or 2 letters only. Could be fixed: - The description is a bit too long by Debian standards. Lucas
Bug#799268: RFS: ck/1.6.2 [ITP]
Hi Lucas, Thank you very much for your time to check it - really appreciated! And sorry for some mix ups - it's my first time trying to package something for Debian ;) ... Must be fixed: -> Given that this software is not specific to Debian, and publishes releases on its homepage, this should not be a native package. instead, its version should be of the form 1.6.2-1, 1.6.2-2, so that the Debian revision (the part after the '-') can be changed when packaging changes are made, without making a new upstream release. Oh, I see. I will check how to fix that ... - I'm not familiar with python packaging, but when building this package, I only get a python2 package (and no python3 package). There's something wrong here. I wonder if it's related to the fact that the version of python-stdeb that you seem to be using (according to the headers in say debian/rules) is very old. Given that Debian packages are uploaded targetting Debian 'unstable', it's better to do Debian development in unstable or testing (possibly in a chroot). I created a separate package for python3-ck but it's true that it doesn't look like it was uploaded - need to check that ... Should probably be fixed: - If I understand ck correctly, it's more an application than a library: users are not really exposed to the fact that it's written in python, and the python lib is not supposed to be used by third parties (it can be used in ipython, but the target is not really to build a third party application on top of it). If that's correct, then it should not be packaged like a python library, but more like an application (that happens to be written in python). In fact, it is both. It can be used as a standalone python library or it can be used as an application (via ck batch script). - there's another problem: namespace pollution in few-characters commands. It's usually a bad practice to name something (that is not a historical unix tool) with 1 or 2 letters only. Oh, I didn't know that :( . Will it really be a problem (I didn't see any tool called ck yet)? The problem is that our users now share some artifacts in this format and they use this name (in scripts or internal calls), so changing this name now will be a nightmare :( ... Could be fixed: - The description is a bit too long by Debian standards. Ok. I will reduce it... Thanks a lot again for your comments. I will try to fix them soon! Have a good weekend, Grigori
Bug#799268: RFS: ck/1.6.2 [ITP]
Sorry for mixing this up and thanks again for your help... Grigori -Original Message- From: Lucas Nussbaum Sent: Thursday, September 17, 2015 10:44 PM To: Grigori Fursin ; 799...@bugs.debian.org Cc: Ghislain Vaillant ; cont...@bugs.debian.org Subject: Re: Bug#799268: RFS: ck/1.6.2 [ITP] reassign 799268 sponsorship-requests retitle 799268 RFS: python-ck/1.6.3 [ITP] thanks Actually, it should remain assigned to sponsorship-requests (and there was a quoting problem) This should be fixed now. Lucas On 17/09/15 at 14:19 +0200, Grigori Fursin wrote: I managed to change the title of this bug report to "python-ck" and delete old "ck" package. I didn't manage to update the original message with new links, but I guess it's not necessary ... Thanks a lot, Grigori -Original Message- From: Ghislain Vaillant Sent: Thursday, September 17, 2015 1:40 PM To: Grigori Fursin ; 799...@bugs.debian.org Subject: Re: Bug#799268: RFS: ck/1.6.2 [ITP] You can delete it and retitle this bug report [1] with the new source package name. [1] https://wiki.debian.org/HowtoUseBTS Ghislain On 17/09/15 12:37, Grigori Fursin wrote: >Hi Ghislain, > >Thanks a lot for quick check! >I renamed source package to python-ck and uploaded it: >https://mentors.debian.net/package/python-ck > >However, what should I do with the previous package? >Should I delete it, or should I just put a note with a link >to a new package? >Thanks a lot, >Grigori > > >-Original Message- From: Ghislain Vaillant Sent: Thursday, >September 17, 2015 1:09 PM To: Grigori Fursin ; 799...@bugs.debian.org >Subject: Re: Bug#799268: RFS: ck/1.6.2 [ITP] >On 17/09/15 11:43, Grigori Fursin wrote: >>Package: sponsorship-requests >>Severity: wishlist >>Dear mentors, >>I am looking for a sponsor for my package "ck" >>* Package name: ck >> Version : 1.6.2 >> Upstream Author : Grigori Fursin >>* URL : http://github.com/ctuning/ck >>* License : BSD-3-clause >> Section : python >>It builds those binary packages: >>python-ck - Collective Knowledge Framework to share and reuse >>research artifacts (Python 2) >>python3-ck - Collective Knowledge Framework to share and reuse >>research artifacts (Python 3) >>To access further information about this package, please visit the >>following URL: >>http://mentors.debian.net/package/ck >>Alternatively, one can download the package with dget using this >>command: >>dget -x http://mentors.debian.net/debian/pool/main/c/ck/ck_1.6.2.dsc >>More information about hello can be obtained >>from http://github.com/ctuning/ck/wiki . >>Regards, >> Grigori Fursin > >Since this is a pure Python package, may I suggest to rename the source >package to "python-ck" instead of "ck"? > >Kind regards, >Ghislain
Bug#799268: RFS: ck/1.6.2 [ITP]
On 18/09/15 at 12:25 +0200, Grigori Fursin wrote: > Hi Lucas, > > Thank you very much for your time to check it - really appreciated! > And sorry for some mix ups - it's my first time trying to package > something for Debian ;) ... > > >Must be fixed: > -> Given that this software is not specific to Debian, and publishes > >releases on its homepage, this should not be a native package. instead, > >its version should be of the form 1.6.2-1, 1.6.2-2, so that the Debian > >revision (the part after the '-') can be changed when packaging changes > >are made, without making a new upstream release. > > Oh, I see. I will check how to fix that ... > > >- I'm not familiar with python packaging, but when building this > >package, I only get a python2 package (and no python3 package). There's > >something wrong here. I wonder if it's related to the fact that the > >version of python-stdeb that you seem to be using (according to the > >headers in say debian/rules) is very old. Given that Debian packages are > >uploaded targetting Debian 'unstable', it's better to do Debian > >development in unstable or testing (possibly in a chroot). > > I created a separate package for python3-ck but it's true that it > doesn't look like it was uploaded - need to check that ... > > >Should probably be fixed: > >- If I understand ck correctly, it's more an application than a library: > >users are not really exposed to the fact that it's written in python, > >and the python lib is not supposed to be used by third parties (it can > >be used in ipython, but the target is not really to build a third party > >application on top of it). > >If that's correct, then it should not be packaged like a python library, > >but more like an application (that happens to be written in python). > > In fact, it is both. It can be used as a standalone python library or it can > be used as an application (via ck batch script). Then you might want to package the application separately, so that the library packages are really libraries. > >- there's another problem: namespace pollution in few-characters > >commands. It's usually a bad practice to name something (that is not a > >historical unix tool) with 1 or 2 letters only. > > Oh, I didn't know that :( . Will it really be a problem (I didn't see any > tool called ck yet)? The problem is that our users now share some artifacts > in this format and they use this name (in scripts or internal calls), > so changing this name now will be a nightmare :( ... I'm not sure if there's an official policy about that. It's probably worth trying to upload with a ck binary, and see if someone complains :) Lucas
Bug#799268: RFS: ck/1.6.2 [ITP]
> >> Oh, I didn't know that :( . Will it really be a problem (I didn't see any >> tool called ck yet)? The problem is that our users now share some artifacts >> in this format and they use this name (in scripts or internal calls), >> so changing this name now will be a nightmare :( ... > >I'm not sure if there's an official policy about that. It's probably >worth trying to upload with a ck binary, and see if someone complains :) I guess you can always install a longer name and create a symlink to ck. (and bother upstream about it) this way people can move to the new binary, and if somebody complain you can "safely" drop the symlink. (or use some "update-alternative" tools I don't remember how) Just my .02$ G.
Bug#799268: RFS: ck/1.6.2 [ITP]
Actually, it's done more or less like that. ck is a batch script that sets environment and calls python module. So, it should be easy to change the name if will be required. However, I made some search and didn't not find obvious conflicts so far ;) ... Thanks, Grigori -Original Message- From: Gianfranco Costamagna Sent: Friday, September 18, 2015 4:02 PM To: Lucas Nussbaum ; Grigori Fursin ; 799...@bugs.debian.org Subject: Bug#799268: RFS: ck/1.6.2 [ITP] Oh, I didn't know that :( . Will it really be a problem (I didn't see any tool called ck yet)? The problem is that our users now share some artifacts in this format and they use this name (in scripts or internal calls), so changing this name now will be a nightmare :( ... I'm not sure if there's an official policy about that. It's probably worth trying to upload with a ck binary, and see if someone complains :) I guess you can always install a longer name and create a symlink to ck. (and bother upstream about it) this way people can move to the new binary, and if somebody complain you can "safely" drop the symlink. (or use some "update-alternative" tools I don't remember how) Just my .02$ G.
Bug#799268: RFS: ck/1.6.2 [ITP]
Sure, I will check what can be done. It's just that we use it much more as app at the moment then library, so maybe we can just keep it as it for now. If we will see increasing use as library, we can separate them ... Thanks again and have a good weekend, Grigori -Original Message- From: Lucas Nussbaum Sent: Friday, September 18, 2015 3:49 PM To: Grigori Fursin ; 799...@bugs.debian.org Subject: Bug#799268: RFS: ck/1.6.2 [ITP] On 18/09/15 at 12:25 +0200, Grigori Fursin wrote: Hi Lucas, Thank you very much for your time to check it - really appreciated! And sorry for some mix ups - it's my first time trying to package something for Debian ;) ... >Must be fixed: -> Given that this software is not specific to Debian, and publishes >releases on its homepage, this should not be a native package. instead, >its version should be of the form 1.6.2-1, 1.6.2-2, so that the Debian >revision (the part after the '-') can be changed when packaging changes >are made, without making a new upstream release. Oh, I see. I will check how to fix that ... >- I'm not familiar with python packaging, but when building this >package, I only get a python2 package (and no python3 package). There's >something wrong here. I wonder if it's related to the fact that the >version of python-stdeb that you seem to be using (according to the >headers in say debian/rules) is very old. Given that Debian packages are >uploaded targetting Debian 'unstable', it's better to do Debian >development in unstable or testing (possibly in a chroot). I created a separate package for python3-ck but it's true that it doesn't look like it was uploaded - need to check that ... >Should probably be fixed: >- If I understand ck correctly, it's more an application than a library: >users are not really exposed to the fact that it's written in python, >and the python lib is not supposed to be used by third parties (it can >be used in ipython, but the target is not really to build a third party >application on top of it). >If that's correct, then it should not be packaged like a python library, >but more like an application (that happens to be written in python). In fact, it is both. It can be used as a standalone python library or it can be used as an application (via ck batch script). Then you might want to package the application separately, so that the library packages are really libraries. >- there's another problem: namespace pollution in few-characters >commands. It's usually a bad practice to name something (that is not a >historical unix tool) with 1 or 2 letters only. Oh, I didn't know that :( . Will it really be a problem (I didn't see any tool called ck yet)? The problem is that our users now share some artifacts in this format and they use this name (in scripts or internal calls), so changing this name now will be a nightmare :( ... I'm not sure if there's an official policy about that. It's probably worth trying to upload with a ck binary, and see if someone complains :) Lucas
Bug#799268: RFS: ck/1.6.2 [ITP]
Dear colleagues, I fixed all the issues with my package, added the latest upstream release, and uploaded the new version to Debian mentors: http://mentors.debian.net/package/python-ck The only problem is that I have an error message there "Bug #799268 does not belong to this package" Can it be because I originally submitted a request for package 'ck' and not 'python-ck'? Is there a way to change it? Thanks a lot and have a good week, Grigori -Original Message- From: Grigori Fursin Sent: Saturday, September 19, 2015 11:18 AM To: Gianfranco Costamagna ; Lucas Nussbaum ; 799...@bugs.debian.org Subject: Bug#799268: RFS: ck/1.6.2 [ITP] Actually, it's done more or less like that. ck is a batch script that sets environment and calls python module. So, it should be easy to change the name if will be required. However, I made some search and didn't not find obvious conflicts so far ;) ... Thanks, Grigori -Original Message- From: Gianfranco Costamagna Sent: Friday, September 18, 2015 4:02 PM To: Lucas Nussbaum ; Grigori Fursin ; 799...@bugs.debian.org Subject: Bug#799268: RFS: ck/1.6.2 [ITP] Oh, I didn't know that :( . Will it really be a problem (I didn't see any tool called ck yet)? The problem is that our users now share some artifacts in this format and they use this name (in scripts or internal calls), so changing this name now will be a nightmare :( ... I'm not sure if there's an official policy about that. It's probably worth trying to upload with a ck binary, and see if someone complains :) I guess you can always install a longer name and create a symlink to ck. (and bother upstream about it) this way people can move to the new binary, and if somebody complain you can "safely" drop the symlink. (or use some "update-alternative" tools I don't remember how) Just my .02$ G.
Bug#799268: RFS: ck/1.6.2 [ITP]
Hi, https://www.debian.org/Bugs/server-control retitle is the keyword :) cheers, G. Il Lunedì 28 Settembre 2015 10:15, Grigori Fursin ha scritto: Dear colleagues, I fixed all the issues with my package, added the latest upstream release, and uploaded the new version to Debian mentors: http://mentors.debian.net/package/python-ck The only problem is that I have an error message there "Bug #799268 does not belong to this package" Can it be because I originally submitted a request for package 'ck' and not 'python-ck'? Is there a way to change it? Thanks a lot and have a good week, Grigori -Original Message- From: Grigori Fursin Sent: Saturday, September 19, 2015 11:18 AM To: Gianfranco Costamagna ; Lucas Nussbaum ; 799...@bugs.debian.org Subject: Bug#799268: RFS: ck/1.6.2 [ITP] Actually, it's done more or less like that. ck is a batch script that sets environment and calls python module. So, it should be easy to change the name if will be required. However, I made some search and didn't not find obvious conflicts so far ;) ... Thanks, Grigori -Original Message- From: Gianfranco Costamagna Sent: Friday, September 18, 2015 4:02 PM To: Lucas Nussbaum ; Grigori Fursin ; 799...@bugs.debian.org Subject: Bug#799268: RFS: ck/1.6.2 [ITP] > >> Oh, I didn't know that :( . Will it really be a problem (I didn't see any >> tool called ck yet)? The problem is that our users now share some >> artifacts >> in this format and they use this name (in scripts or internal calls), >> so changing this name now will be a nightmare :( ... > >I'm not sure if there's an official policy about that. It's probably >worth trying to upload with a ck binary, and see if someone complains :) I guess you can always install a longer name and create a symlink to ck. (and bother upstream about it) this way people can move to the new binary, and if somebody complain you can "safely" drop the symlink. (or use some "update-alternative" tools I don't remember how) Just my .02$ G.
Bug#799268: RFS: ck/1.6.2 [ITP]
Hi Gianfranco, But I already retitled it some time ago as you suggested (including the latest upstream version) and it's now: RFS: python-ck/1.6.11-1 [ITP] My submitted package name is also python-ck. However, it still says that "Bug #799268 does not belong to this package" That's why I am not sure what's wrong :( ... Maybe the package name is taken from the body of the original message, i.e. "ck" instead of "python-ck"? Sorry for bothering with that and thanks for your help, Grigori -Original Message- From: Gianfranco Costamagna Sent: Monday, September 28, 2015 10:21 AM To: Grigori Fursin ; 799...@bugs.debian.org Subject: Bug#799268: RFS: ck/1.6.2 [ITP] Hi, https://www.debian.org/Bugs/server-control retitle is the keyword :) cheers, G. Il Lunedì 28 Settembre 2015 10:15, Grigori Fursin ha scritto: Dear colleagues, I fixed all the issues with my package, added the latest upstream release, and uploaded the new version to Debian mentors: http://mentors.debian.net/package/python-ck The only problem is that I have an error message there "Bug #799268 does not belong to this package" Can it be because I originally submitted a request for package 'ck' and not 'python-ck'? Is there a way to change it? Thanks a lot and have a good week, Grigori -Original Message- From: Grigori Fursin Sent: Saturday, September 19, 2015 11:18 AM To: Gianfranco Costamagna ; Lucas Nussbaum ; 799...@bugs.debian.org Subject: Bug#799268: RFS: ck/1.6.2 [ITP] Actually, it's done more or less like that. ck is a batch script that sets environment and calls python module. So, it should be easy to change the name if will be required. However, I made some search and didn't not find obvious conflicts so far ;) ... Thanks, Grigori -Original Message- From: Gianfranco Costamagna Sent: Friday, September 18, 2015 4:02 PM To: Lucas Nussbaum ; Grigori Fursin ; 799...@bugs.debian.org Subject: Bug#799268: RFS: ck/1.6.2 [ITP] Oh, I didn't know that :( . Will it really be a problem (I didn't see any tool called ck yet)? The problem is that our users now share some artifacts in this format and they use this name (in scripts or internal calls), so changing this name now will be a nightmare :( ... I'm not sure if there's an official policy about that. It's probably worth trying to upload with a ck binary, and see if someone complains :) I guess you can always install a longer name and create a symlink to ck. (and bother upstream about it) this way people can move to the new binary, and if somebody complain you can "safely" drop the symlink. (or use some "update-alternative" tools I don't remember how) Just my .02$ G.
Bug#799268: RFS: ck/1.6.2 [ITP]
You need to open an ITP bug https://www.debian.org/devel/wnpp/ and close *that* bug. the RFS bug is closed by your sponsor when the upload is performed. cheers, G. Il Lunedì 28 Settembre 2015 10:34, Grigori Fursin ha scritto: Hi Gianfranco, But I already retitled it some time ago as you suggested (including the latest upstream version) and it's now: RFS: python-ck/1.6.11-1 [ITP] My submitted package name is also python-ck. However, it still says that "Bug #799268 does not belong to this package" That's why I am not sure what's wrong :( ... Maybe the package name is taken from the body of the original message, i.e. "ck" instead of "python-ck"? Sorry for bothering with that and thanks for your help, Grigori -Original Message- From: Gianfranco Costamagna Sent: Monday, September 28, 2015 10:21 AM To: Grigori Fursin ; 799...@bugs.debian.org Subject: Bug#799268: RFS: ck/1.6.2 [ITP] Hi, https://www.debian.org/Bugs/server-control retitle is the keyword :) cheers, G. Il Lunedì 28 Settembre 2015 10:15, Grigori Fursin ha scritto: Dear colleagues, I fixed all the issues with my package, added the latest upstream release, and uploaded the new version to Debian mentors: http://mentors.debian.net/package/python-ck The only problem is that I have an error message there "Bug #799268 does not belong to this package" Can it be because I originally submitted a request for package 'ck' and not 'python-ck'? Is there a way to change it? Thanks a lot and have a good week, Grigori -Original Message- From: Grigori Fursin Sent: Saturday, September 19, 2015 11:18 AM To: Gianfranco Costamagna ; Lucas Nussbaum ; 799...@bugs.debian.org Subject: Bug#799268: RFS: ck/1.6.2 [ITP] Actually, it's done more or less like that. ck is a batch script that sets environment and calls python module. So, it should be easy to change the name if will be required. However, I made some search and didn't not find obvious conflicts so far ;) ... Thanks, Grigori -Original Message- From: Gianfranco Costamagna Sent: Friday, September 18, 2015 4:02 PM To: Lucas Nussbaum ; Grigori Fursin ; 799...@bugs.debian.org Subject: Bug#799268: RFS: ck/1.6.2 [ITP] > >> Oh, I didn't know that :( . Will it really be a problem (I didn't see any >> tool called ck yet)? The problem is that our users now share some >> artifacts >> in this format and they use this name (in scripts or internal calls), >> so changing this name now will be a nightmare :( ... > >I'm not sure if there's an official policy about that. It's probably >worth trying to upload with a ck binary, and see if someone complains :) I guess you can always install a longer name and create a symlink to ck. (and bother upstream about it) this way people can move to the new binary, and if somebody complain you can "safely" drop the symlink. (or use some "update-alternative" tools I don't remember how) Just my .02$ G.
Bug#799268: RFS: ck/1.6.2 [ITP]
Oh, I see - I was jumping too far ;) ! I actually still don't have an official sponsor, so I removed "closing bug" from the changelog, uploaded a new package (it doesn't have errors anymore), and will now be patiently waiting for a sponsor ... By the way, I also uploaded python3-ck: https://mentors.debian.net/package/python3-ck Thanks a lot for your help, Grigori -Original Message- From: Gianfranco Costamagna Sent: Monday, September 28, 2015 10:38 AM To: Grigori Fursin ; 799...@bugs.debian.org Subject: Re: Bug#799268: RFS: ck/1.6.2 [ITP] You need to open an ITP bug https://www.debian.org/devel/wnpp/ and close *that* bug. the RFS bug is closed by your sponsor when the upload is performed. cheers, G. Il Lunedì 28 Settembre 2015 10:34, Grigori Fursin ha scritto: Hi Gianfranco, But I already retitled it some time ago as you suggested (including the latest upstream version) and it's now: RFS: python-ck/1.6.11-1 [ITP] My submitted package name is also python-ck. However, it still says that "Bug #799268 does not belong to this package" That's why I am not sure what's wrong :( ... Maybe the package name is taken from the body of the original message, i.e. "ck" instead of "python-ck"? Sorry for bothering with that and thanks for your help, Grigori -Original Message- From: Gianfranco Costamagna Sent: Monday, September 28, 2015 10:21 AM To: Grigori Fursin ; 799...@bugs.debian.org Subject: Bug#799268: RFS: ck/1.6.2 [ITP] Hi, https://www.debian.org/Bugs/server-control retitle is the keyword :) cheers, G. Il Lunedì 28 Settembre 2015 10:15, Grigori Fursin ha scritto: Dear colleagues, I fixed all the issues with my package, added the latest upstream release, and uploaded the new version to Debian mentors: http://mentors.debian.net/package/python-ck The only problem is that I have an error message there "Bug #799268 does not belong to this package" Can it be because I originally submitted a request for package 'ck' and not 'python-ck'? Is there a way to change it? Thanks a lot and have a good week, Grigori -Original Message- From: Grigori Fursin Sent: Saturday, September 19, 2015 11:18 AM To: Gianfranco Costamagna ; Lucas Nussbaum ; 799...@bugs.debian.org Subject: Bug#799268: RFS: ck/1.6.2 [ITP] Actually, it's done more or less like that. ck is a batch script that sets environment and calls python module. So, it should be easy to change the name if will be required. However, I made some search and didn't not find obvious conflicts so far ;) ... Thanks, Grigori -Original Message- From: Gianfranco Costamagna Sent: Friday, September 18, 2015 4:02 PM To: Lucas Nussbaum ; Grigori Fursin ; 799...@bugs.debian.org Subject: Bug#799268: RFS: ck/1.6.2 [ITP] Oh, I didn't know that :( . Will it really be a problem (I didn't see any tool called ck yet)? The problem is that our users now share some artifacts in this format and they use this name (in scripts or internal calls), so changing this name now will be a nightmare :( ... I'm not sure if there's an official policy about that. It's probably worth trying to upload with a ck binary, and see if someone complains :) I guess you can always install a longer name and create a symlink to ck. (and bother upstream about it) this way people can move to the new binary, and if somebody complain you can "safely" drop the symlink. (or use some "update-alternative" tools I don't remember how) Just my .02$ G.
Bug#799268: RFS: ck/1.6.2 [ITP]
Hi Grigori, >By the way, I also uploaded python3-ck: >https://mentors.debian.net/package/python3-ck this is a nack for me. You can build two binaries with the same source package, look e.g. to https://sources.debian.net/src/python-esmre/0.3.1-3/ this includes: compat level --> 9 debhelper >= 9 ITP bug? rules --> export PYBUILD_NAME and use pybuild control --> add python3 dependencies and the package changelog --> rename it to ck? and maybe something more. For sure you need to have the same codebase and two binaries. (mentors/lintian can give you hints about what you need to change). Since you are providing one binary and two libraries, you might want to conflict them each other BTW copyright needs some care: ck/repo/module/web/php/openme.php: *No copyright* LGPL (v2.1 or later) and maybe others. cheers, G.
Bug#799268: RFS: ck/1.6.2 [ITP]
Thanks again, Gianfranco, Will try to fix it this week (I had some problems creating two packages from the same source since I needed to make a patch for Python3, but failed) ... Have a good week, Grigori -Original Message- From: Gianfranco Costamagna Sent: Thursday, October 01, 2015 4:03 PM To: Grigori Fursin ; 799...@bugs.debian.org Cc: Lucas Nussbaum Subject: Bug#799268: RFS: ck/1.6.2 [ITP] Hi Grigori, By the way, I also uploaded python3-ck: https://mentors.debian.net/package/python3-ck this is a nack for me. You can build two binaries with the same source package, look e.g. to https://sources.debian.net/src/python-esmre/0.3.1-3/ this includes: compat level --> 9 debhelper >= 9 ITP bug? rules --> export PYBUILD_NAME and use pybuild control --> add python3 dependencies and the package changelog --> rename it to ck? and maybe something more. For sure you need to have the same codebase and two binaries. (mentors/lintian can give you hints about what you need to change). Since you are providing one binary and two libraries, you might want to conflict them each other BTW copyright needs some care: ck/repo/module/web/php/openme.php: *No copyright* LGPL (v2.1 or later) and maybe others. cheers, G.
Bug#799268: RFS: ck/1.6.2 [ITP]
Hi Gianfranco, After hacking various guides I managed to update python-ck based on what you mentioned: https://mentors.debian.net/package/python3-ck this is a nack for me. You can build two binaries with the same source package, look e.g. to https://sources.debian.net/src/python-esmre/0.3.1-3/ I have done that and deleted separate python3-ck package. this includes: compat level --> 9 debhelper >= 9 Done. ITP bug? I changed it as ITP bug. It still complains and I guess this can only be fixed when I find a sponsor ... rules --> export PYBUILD_NAME and use pybuild control --> add python3 dependencies and the package Done. changelog --> rename it to ck? I couldn't change it to ck, since I still release package as python-ck ... and maybe something more. For sure you need to have the same codebase and two binaries. (mentors/lintian can give you hints about what you need to change). It seems to be fine now. Since you are providing one binary and two libraries, you might want to conflict them each other Yeap, added that and tested - seems to be working fine! BTW copyright needs some care: ck/repo/module/web/php/openme.php: *No copyright* LGPL (v2.1 or later) Thanks for noting that - I changed that to original CK license ... There are just a few pedantic warnings about * application-in-library-section * library-package-name-for-application But I can't change that - in fact I saw some notes suggesting to just ignore (or override) this message in my case. I hope it's ok now ;) ... Thanks a lot again, Grigori
Bug#799268: RFS: ck/1.6.2 [ITP]
On 07/11/15 at 16:21 +0100, Grigori Fursin wrote: > Hi Gianfranco, > > After hacking various guides I managed to update python-ck > based on what you mentioned: > > >https://mentors.debian.net/package/python3-ck > >this is a nack for me. > > > >You can build two binaries with the same source package, look e.g. to > >https://sources.debian.net/src/python-esmre/0.3.1-3/ > > I have done that and deleted separate python3-ck package. > > >this includes: > >compat level --> 9 > >debhelper >= 9 > > Done. > > >ITP bug? > I changed it as ITP bug. It still complains and I guess > this can only be fixed when I find a sponsor ... you need both an ITP bug (because it's a new package) and an RFS bug (because you are looking for a sponsor) Lucas
Bug#799268: RFS: ck/1.6.2 [ITP]
Hi Lucas, Do you mean that I should open a separate ticket (RFS)? Or since the package now seems to be okeish, should I just continue searching for a sponsor? Thanks, Grigori -Original Message- From: Lucas Nussbaum Sent: Tuesday, November 10, 2015 9:38 AM To: Grigori Fursin Cc: Gianfranco Costamagna ; 799...@bugs.debian.org Subject: Bug#799268: RFS: ck/1.6.2 [ITP] On 07/11/15 at 16:21 +0100, Grigori Fursin wrote: Hi Gianfranco, After hacking various guides I managed to update python-ck based on what you mentioned: >https://mentors.debian.net/package/python3-ck >this is a nack for me. > >You can build two binaries with the same source package, look e.g. to >https://sources.debian.net/src/python-esmre/0.3.1-3/ I have done that and deleted separate python3-ck package. >this includes: >compat level --> 9 >debhelper >= 9 Done. >ITP bug? I changed it as ITP bug. It still complains and I guess this can only be fixed when I find a sponsor ... you need both an ITP bug (because it's a new package) and an RFS bug (because you are looking for a sponsor) Lucas
Bug#799268: RFS: ck/1.6.2 [ITP]
Hi Grigori, the RFS is already fine and you are just missing the ITP. ITP means "I want to package this foo for Debian" and you close it in your changelog RFS (this bug #799268) means: I want to find a sponsor, because I'm not able to directly upload on Debian. this RFS is closed by your sponsor when the upload is performed, the other bug (*A NEW BUG*) needs to be opened and closed in the upload in this way: * Initial Release (Closes: #X) where X is the ITP bug. cheers, G. Il Martedì 10 Novembre 2015 10:09, Grigori Fursin ha scritto: Hi Lucas, Do you mean that I should open a separate ticket (RFS)? Or since the package now seems to be okeish, should I just continue searching for a sponsor? Thanks, Grigori -Original Message- From: Lucas Nussbaum Sent: Tuesday, November 10, 2015 9:38 AM To: Grigori Fursin Cc: Gianfranco Costamagna ; 799...@bugs.debian.org Subject: Bug#799268: RFS: ck/1.6.2 [ITP] On 07/11/15 at 16:21 +0100, Grigori Fursin wrote: > Hi Gianfranco, > > After hacking various guides I managed to update python-ck > based on what you mentioned: > > >https://mentors.debian.net/package/python3-ck > >this is a nack for me. > > > >You can build two binaries with the same source package, look e.g. to > >https://sources.debian.net/src/python-esmre/0.3.1-3/ > > I have done that and deleted separate python3-ck package. > > >this includes: > >compat level --> 9 > >debhelper >= 9 > > Done. > > >ITP bug? > I changed it as ITP bug. It still complains and I guess > this can only be fixed when I find a sponsor ... you need both an ITP bug (because it's a new package) and an RFS bug (because you are looking for a sponsor) Lucas
Bug#799268: RFS: ck/1.6.2 [ITP]
I think I see. Thanks, Gianfranco. I guess I will now wait if someone will be willing to sponsor my package and then will try finalize all that ... Take care, Grigori -Original Message- From: Gianfranco Costamagna Sent: Tuesday, November 10, 2015 10:17 AM To: Grigori Fursin ; Lucas Nussbaum ; 799...@bugs.debian.org Subject: Re: Bug#799268: RFS: ck/1.6.2 [ITP] Hi Grigori, the RFS is already fine and you are just missing the ITP. ITP means "I want to package this foo for Debian" and you close it in your changelog RFS (this bug #799268) means: I want to find a sponsor, because I'm not able to directly upload on Debian. this RFS is closed by your sponsor when the upload is performed, the other bug (*A NEW BUG*) needs to be opened and closed in the upload in this way: * Initial Release (Closes: #X) where X is the ITP bug. cheers, G. Il Martedì 10 Novembre 2015 10:09, Grigori Fursin ha scritto: Hi Lucas, Do you mean that I should open a separate ticket (RFS)? Or since the package now seems to be okeish, should I just continue searching for a sponsor? Thanks, Grigori -Original Message- From: Lucas Nussbaum Sent: Tuesday, November 10, 2015 9:38 AM To: Grigori Fursin Cc: Gianfranco Costamagna ; 799...@bugs.debian.org Subject: Bug#799268: RFS: ck/1.6.2 [ITP] On 07/11/15 at 16:21 +0100, Grigori Fursin wrote: Hi Gianfranco, After hacking various guides I managed to update python-ck based on what you mentioned: >https://mentors.debian.net/package/python3-ck >this is a nack for me. > >You can build two binaries with the same source package, look e.g. to >https://sources.debian.net/src/python-esmre/0.3.1-3/ I have done that and deleted separate python3-ck package. >this includes: >compat level --> 9 >debhelper >= 9 Done. >ITP bug? I changed it as ITP bug. It still complains and I guess this can only be fixed when I find a sponsor ... you need both an ITP bug (because it's a new package) and an RFS bug (because you are looking for a sponsor) Lucas
Bug#799268: RFS: ck/1.6.2 [ITP]
Control: owner -1 ! Hi Grigori, can you please upload it again? Now I have more knowledge about the python applications, and I can take care of the sponsoring. Unfortunately the package is not on mentors anymore thanks (and sorry for the delay) Gianfranco Il Mercoledì 11 Novembre 2015 15:48, Grigori Fursin ha scritto: I think I see. Thanks, Gianfranco. I guess I will now wait if someone will be willing to sponsor my package and then will try finalize all that ... Take care, Grigori -Original Message- From: Gianfranco Costamagna Sent: Tuesday, November 10, 2015 10:17 AM To: Grigori Fursin ; Lucas Nussbaum ; 799...@bugs.debian.org Subject: Re: Bug#799268: RFS: ck/1.6.2 [ITP] Hi Grigori, the RFS is already fine and you are just missing the ITP. ITP means "I want to package this foo for Debian" and you close it in your changelog RFS (this bug #799268) means: I want to find a sponsor, because I'm not able to directly upload on Debian. this RFS is closed by your sponsor when the upload is performed, the other bug (*A NEW BUG*) needs to be opened and closed in the upload in this way: * Initial Release (Closes: #X) where X is the ITP bug. cheers, G. Il Martedì 10 Novembre 2015 10:09, Grigori Fursin ha scritto: Hi Lucas, Do you mean that I should open a separate ticket (RFS)? Or since the package now seems to be okeish, should I just continue searching for a sponsor? Thanks, Grigori -Original Message- From: Lucas Nussbaum Sent: Tuesday, November 10, 2015 9:38 AM To: Grigori Fursin Cc: Gianfranco Costamagna ; 799...@bugs.debian.org Subject: Bug#799268: RFS: ck/1.6.2 [ITP] On 07/11/15 at 16:21 +0100, Grigori Fursin wrote: > Hi Gianfranco, > > After hacking various guides I managed to update python-ck > based on what you mentioned: > > >https://mentors.debian.net/package/python3-ck > >this is a nack for me. > > > >You can build two binaries with the same source package, look e.g. to > >https://sources.debian.net/src/python-esmre/0.3.1-3/ > > I have done that and deleted separate python3-ck package. > > >this includes: > >compat level --> 9 > >debhelper >= 9 > > Done. > > >ITP bug? > I changed it as ITP bug. It still complains and I guess > this can only be fixed when I find a sponsor ... you need both an ITP bug (because it's a new package) and an RFS bug (because you are looking for a sponsor) Lucas