How to give lesstif2 some attention?
Hi mentors, Recently I have invested quite some time to prepare a debdif for lesstif2 [0] to help the maintainer. Lesstif, which had low threshold NMU preference set, did not have a regular update in 1.5 years and definitely could use some attention. In my debdif I solved the following debian bugs: 396199, 479779, 503361, 314440, 43640, 87745, 356017, 496081 and 330057 by patching the code with patches available from upstream, Fedora and the BTS. I included the debdif in bug #522157 [1] on the April 1. I tried already before that date to contact the current maintainer, but apart from a short conversation on IRC I he doesn't respond (although he seems present on IRC). In that conversation he was interested in the debdif. I also intend to work with upstream (nearly dead by the looks of it, but I got commit rights) to improve the source code and eventually a new point release. Unfortunately that will be somewhat slow because I am unfamiliar with the code. What are your ideas of how to proceed? Is somebody willing to check the debdif? Maybe prefer a proper .dsc? Or of course just waiting for the current maintainer? I would appreciate some visions. With kind regards, Paul [0] OSF/Motif 2.1 implementation released under LGPL [1] http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=522157 signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Re: How to give lesstif2 some attention?
On Wed, 29 Apr 2009 17:29:12 +0200 Paul Gevers p...@climbing.nl wrote: Hi mentors, Recently I have invested quite some time to prepare a debdif for lesstif2 [0] to help the maintainer. Lesstif, which had low threshold NMU preference set, did not have a regular update in 1.5 years and definitely could use some attention. In my debdif I solved the following debian bugs: 396199, 479779, 503361, 314440, 43640, 87745, 356017, 496081 and 330057 by patching the code with patches available from upstream, Fedora and the BTS. I included the debdif in bug #522157 [1] on the April 1. I tried already before that date to #contact the current maintainer, but apart from a short conversation on IRC I he doesn't respond (although he seems present on IRC). In that conversation he was interested in the debdif. Use the posted debdiff to create a package and upload it to mentors.debian.net and post a complete RFS. I also intend to work with upstream (nearly dead by the looks of it, but I got commit rights) to improve the source code and eventually a new point release. Unfortunately that will be somewhat slow because I am unfamiliar with the code. Make a new upstream release once all the existing patches and changes are incorporated upstream. This is similar to how I'm dealing with drivel. I refreshed the upstream source for the version that was in Debian at the time (basically running autoreconf and intltool-update -r etc.), added suitable patches from the BTS etc. and made a new release (2.0.4 which is now in Debian). The work then involved pushing those changes back into the main upstream trunk and gradually getting that combination back into shape for a complete upstream release. If you are going to do this, you should at least be a co-maintainer of the package in Debian - if you cannot get approval for that from the existing maintainer, you may be better seeking a hijack. Stale packages that have a revitalised upstream are usually granted hijacks if the proposed maintainer is part of the new upstream team. (Hijack sounds more dramatic than it really is in most cases.) What are your ideas of how to proceed? Is somebody willing to check the debdif? Maybe prefer a proper .dsc? Or of course just waiting for the current maintainer? I would appreciate some visions. A debdiff is hard for anyone to review except the package maintainer. A built package with a .dsc and .changes, lintian check results and the rest make it easier for people on this list to give you a complete review of the package. -- Neil Williams = http://www.data-freedom.org/ http://www.linux.codehelp.co.uk/ http://e-mail.is-not-s.ms/ pgpTxkzO1QIn1.pgp Description: PGP signature
RFS: lesstif2 (updated package) [Was: Re: How to give lesstif2 some attention?]
Use the posted debdiff to create a package and upload it to mentors.debian.net and post a complete RFS. Dear mentors, I am looking for a sponsor for the new version 1:0.95.0-2.2 of the package lesstif2, this is not my package but I thought it needed some attention. snip If you are going to do this, you should at least be a co-maintainer of the package in Debian - if you cannot get approval for that from the existing maintainer, you may be better seeking a hijack. Stale packages that have a revitalized upstream are usually granted hijacks if the proposed maintainer is part of the new upstream team. (Hijack sounds more dramatic than it really is in most cases.) I will ask Sam again. I hope he does respond now. The hijacking approach is something I will consider when I have made some progress upstream and Sam still doesn't respond. For now, it builds these binary packages: lesstif-bin - user binaries for LessTif lesstif-doc - documentation for LessTif lesstif2 - OSF/Motif 2.1 implementation released under LGPL lesstif2-dev - development library and header files for LessTif 2.1 The package is not completely lintian clean. p...@etna ~/build/sid $ lintian -I -E --pedantic lesstif2/lesstif*.deb X: lesstif-bin: spelling-error-in-binary ./usr/bin/mwm dont don't I: lesstif2: no-symbols-control-file usr/lib/libMrm.so.2.0.1 I: lesstif2: no-symbols-control-file usr/lib/libXm.so.2.0.1 W: lesstif2: package-name-doesnt-match-sonames libMrm2 libXm2 p...@etna ~/build/sid $ lintian -I -E --pedantic lesstif2/lesstif*.dsc W: lesstif2 source: outdated-autotools-helper-file config.guess 2005-05-15 W: lesstif2 source: outdated-autotools-helper-file config.sub 2005-05-12 I intend to take those on in the next round, although I am not sure if the package deserves a rename. The current maintainer was not sure in the brief discussion I had with him (my only successful communication) and at the moment I think it is too intrusive. The warning about the outdated-autotools-helper-file are new I believe, I didn't see them last month. Probably the way this package builds has to be reengineerd. The upload would fix these bugs: 43640, 314440, 330057, 356017, 396199, 479779, 496081, 503361 (and not in the changelog also bug 522157, where the original debdiff is found) Changelog: lesstif2 (1:0.95.0-2.2) unstable; urgency=low * NMU upload to give some love to lesstif2 * debian/patches: - Add 031_fix_inverted_scrollwheel.diff by Kacper Wysocki, fix invalid mouse scroll wheel bind (Closes: 396199) -- http://sourceforge.net/tracker/index.php?\ func=detailaid=1625384group_id=8596atid=108596 - Add 031_shutup_xtungrabbutton.diff by Filippo Giunchedi, stop lessstif from spewing messages about XtUngrab (Closes: 479779) -- upstream bug 217326 - Add 031_use_X11_Xtos_header.diff by Steve Cotton (Closes: 503361) to include LONG64 definition instead of defining - Add 040_fedora_text.diff small fixes from upstream. - Add 040_fedora_resource.diff fixes error in DialogS.c, function class_initialize. - Add 040_fedora_c++fix.diff includes X11/ShellP.h after c. - Add 040_fedora_XxxxProperty-64bit.diff to fix 64 bit XChange/GetWindowProperty issues, including fix cut and paste from to lesstif apps on 64 bits machines (Closes: 314440) - Add 040_fedora_accelkeys.diff to fix accelkeys which use more then one modifier - Add 050_cvs_invalid_pointer.diff, 050_cvs_1773603_invalid_pointer_TextOut.c.diff, 050_cvs_1773603_invalid_pointer_List.c.diff, 050_cvs_1773603_invalid_pointer_Label.c.diff and 050_cvs_1773603_invalid_pointer_LabelG.c.diff to fix crashing with a wildly invalid pointer inside XmFontListCopy() -- upstream bugs 1773603 and 1298166 - Add 050_cvs_class_initialize_DialogS.c.diff to fix error in function class_initialize - Add 050_cvs_attachbottom_Form.c.diff to fix the layout of applications with widgets which have the AttachBottom - Add 060_update_manpages to fix bad-whatis-entry and several inconsistencies (Closes: 43640 and 87745) - Add 071_fix_crash_on_ESC_Traversal.c to fix crashing applications when pressing ESC in menus (Closes: 356017) * Updated debian/rules - not move VirtualBindings.5 to .1x but to .5x - remove the quilt .pc directory in clean target - honor noopt flag in DEB_BUILD_OPTIONS (Closes: 496081) * Add mwm.desktop file (Closes: 330057) * Update policy to 3.8.1 - Added homepage field in debian/control - Renamed section in debian/lesstif-bin.menu (menu policy) * Removed Apps/ in debian/lesstif-doc.docbase (lintian) * Removed duplicate library from debian/control (lintian) * Changed order of dh_installdeb and dh_makeshlibs in debian/rules (lintian) * Added debian/watch file. * Updated debian/copyright with version numbers of the (L)GPL (lintian) * Added description to old patch files (lintian) The package can be found on
Re: How to give lesstif2 some attention?
In 49f87248.6000...@climbing.nl, Paul Gevers wrote: Recently I have invested quite some time to prepare a debdif for lesstif2 [0] to help the maintainer. Lesstif, which had low threshold NMU preference set, definitely could use some attention. In my debdif I solved the following debian bugs: 396199, 479779, 503361, 314440, 43640, 87745, 356017, 496081 and 330057 by patching the code with patches available from upstream, Fedora and the BTS. I included the debdif in bug #522157 [1] on the April 1. I tried already before that date to contact the current maintainer, but apart from a short conversation on IRC I he doesn't respond (although he seems present on IRC). In that conversation he was interested in the debdif. What are your ideas of how to proceed? I'm not a DD, so I couldn't sponsor you, but it definitely sounds like you have adequate justification for a NMU QA upload. I think prepare a package, throw it on mentors.d.n, and start looking for a sponsor. -- Boyd Stephen Smith Jr. ,= ,-_-. =. b...@iguanasuicide.net ((_/)o o(\_)) ICQ: 514984 YM/AIM: DaTwinkDaddy `-'(. .)`-' http://iguanasuicide.net/\_/ signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
Re: RFS: lesstif2 (updated package) [Was: Re: How to give lesstif2 some attention?]
On Wed, 29 Apr 2009 22:09:37 +0200 Paul Gevers p...@climbing.nl wrote: I am looking for a sponsor for the new version 1:0.95.0-2.2 of the package lesstif2, this is not my package but I thought it needed some attention. This is a big package with a high popcon count, do you have the time for such a large task? On your own? Is there any upstream activity? lesstif-bin - user binaries for LessTif lesstif-doc - documentation for LessTif lesstif2 - OSF/Motif 2.1 implementation released under LGPL lesstif2-dev - development library and header files for LessTif 2.1 The package is not completely lintian clean. p...@etna ~/build/sid $ lintian -I -E --pedantic lesstif2/lesstif*.deb X: lesstif-bin: spelling-error-in-binary ./usr/bin/mwm dont don't I: lesstif2: no-symbols-control-file usr/lib/libMrm.so.2.0.1 I: lesstif2: no-symbols-control-file usr/lib/libXm.so.2.0.1 W: lesstif2: package-name-doesnt-match-sonames libMrm2 libXm2 p...@etna ~/build/sid $ lintian -I -E --pedantic lesstif2/lesstif*.dsc W: lesstif2 source: outdated-autotools-helper-file config.guess 2005-05-15 W: lesstif2 source: outdated-autotools-helper-file config.sub 2005-05-12 The PTS claims 85 lintian errors and warnings, so that is a considerable advance. The spelling error appears trivial and the autotools ones are new, there was an announcement about those on debian-devel regarding problems with new architectures (and, for that matter cross-building) when these files are so out of date. autoreconf will sort those out - you could try it in debian/rules but be aware that updating such an old package could cause new bugs so it might be best to do the entire refresh thing upstream. I intend to take those on in the next round, although I am not sure if the package deserves a rename. Probably easiest done upstream - doing a new SONAME gives you complete freedom in the upstream source to make sure that bugs are fixed cleanly. This would add a significant amount of work to the upstream though. It's not a rename necessarily - the package contains two libraries, you could split those out. $ objdump -p ./lesstif2-0.95.0/debian/lesstif2/usr/lib/libXm.so.2.0.1 | sed -n -e's/^[[:space:]]*SONAME[[:space:]]*//p' | sed -e's/\([0-9]\)\.so \./\1-/; s/\.so\.//' libXm2 $ objdump -p ./lesstif2-0.95.0/debian/lesstif2/usr/lib/libMrm.so.2.0.1 | sed -n -e's/^[[:space:]]*SONAME[[:space:]]*//p' | sed -e's/\([0-9]\) | \.so\./\1-/; s/\.so\.//' libMrm2 Those aren't particularly suitable library names, so you may want to use a lintian override for now and use a more sensible name in a future upstream release - again, a large step for a package of this size. The current maintainer was not sure in the brief discussion I had with him (my only successful communication) and at the moment I think it is too intrusive. The warning about the outdated-autotools-helper-file are new I believe, I didn't see them last month. Probably the way this package builds has to be reengineerd. The upload would fix these bugs: 43640, 314440, 330057, 356017, 396199, 479779, 496081, 503361 (and not in the changelog also bug 522157, where the original debdiff is found) I would be glad if someone would give feedback or upload the package. It's good that it does build in pbuilder. There needs to be a quick, easy way of testing the package - is there a script or internal program that can be run or a simple way of writing a test program? What needs to be done to run stuff in the test/ directory? It doesn't use 'make check' (which appears to do nothing in particular). It's probably too big for me to push much further, I don't have time for that much testing. -- Neil Williams = http://www.data-freedom.org/ http://www.linux.codehelp.co.uk/ http://e-mail.is-not-s.ms/ pgpwLft5OmfuO.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: RFS: lesstif2 (updated package) [Was: Re: How to give lesstif2 some attention?]
Am 29.04.2009 23:12, schrieb Neil Williams: On Wed, 29 Apr 2009 22:09:37 +0200 Paul Geversp...@climbing.nl wrote: W: lesstif2 source: outdated-autotools-helper-file config.guess 2005-05-15 W: lesstif2 source: outdated-autotools-helper-file config.sub 2005-05-12 The PTS claims 85 lintian errors and warnings, so that is a considerable advance. The spelling error appears trivial and the autotools ones are new, there was an announcement about those on debian-devel regarding problems with new architectures (and, for that matter cross-building) when these files are so out of date. autoreconf will sort those out - you could try it in debian/rules but be aware that updating such an old package could cause new bugs so it might be best to do the entire refresh thing upstream. A less invasive approach is, to build-depend on autotools-dev and copy config.(guess,sub) from there. If you backup the exisisting files, you can easily copy them back on clean to return to a pristine state. Running autoreconf has the potential disadvantage that if you run it twice in a row (and you don't remove all autogenerated files in the clean target), that your diff.gz will get bloated. Cheers, Michael -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-mentors-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
