Re: Is FTP Master's NEW queue handled manually?
"Loren M. Lang" schreef op 8 februari 2024 02:13:49 CET: >This is just for my own curiosity and understanding. Is the NEW queue on >FTP Master handled entirely manually? > >I see a number of packages that go back quite a few months, however, >it's not exactly clear to me what kind of things are holding those >packages up at least from looking at the website. For example, looking >at stac-validator, I see it's been in the queue for 6 months now >looking at the bug report linked for it, there doesn't seem to be any >indication of what might be holding it up. Is every item in this queue >ultimately waiting for a human to give it a green light or is there some >automated check that might block them? > >I'm just trying to better understand the process here and how to tell >what is holding a package back when it's been in the queue for months. I >have nothing myself so it's just for understanding. > Certain Lintian tags cause a package to be rejected automatically, as listed under Lintian Autorejects on ftp-master.debian.org. If the package is not automatically rejected, it is manually reviewed according to the criteria on ftp-master.debian.org/REJECT-FAQ.html. -- Vriendelijke groet, Kind regards, Victor Westerhuis
Is FTP Master's NEW queue handled manually?
This is just for my own curiosity and understanding. Is the NEW queue on FTP Master handled entirely manually? I see a number of packages that go back quite a few months, however, it's not exactly clear to me what kind of things are holding those packages up at least from looking at the website. For example, looking at stac-validator, I see it's been in the queue for 6 months now looking at the bug report linked for it, there doesn't seem to be any indication of what might be holding it up. Is every item in this queue ultimately waiting for a human to give it a green light or is there some automated check that might block them? I'm just trying to better understand the process here and how to tell what is holding a package back when it's been in the queue for months. I have nothing myself so it's just for understanding. -- Loren M. Lang lor...@north-winds.org http://www.north-winds.org/ Public Key: http://www.north-winds.org/lorenl_pubkey.asc Fingerprint: 7896 E099 9FC7 9F6C E0ED E103 222D F356 A57A 98FA signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Re: overriding package with older version in new queue
Hi Paul, thanks for the thorough answer :) >PS: In future, when asking questions, please include specific details, >including package names and excerpts of build logs etc. Advice is >almost always better when given more information as input. ACK
Re: overriding package with older version in new queue
On Tue, Aug 10, 2021 at 11:24 AM Peymaneh Nejad wrote: > I realised later that this package actually break the build, and that this > can be solved by packaging _older_ version of the dependency package (that's > also what upstream does. The best option is to send upstream a patch to fix the build when using the newer version of the dependency, then package the version that includes the patch. Eventually upgrading the dependency package will be needed so the build failure will need to be fixed sooner or later and fixing it sooner rather than later is better. If you take this approach it is a good idea to make the build work with both the old version and the new version, so that people stuck on the old version for whatever reason don't have to upgrade. > Should I or my sponsor contact ftp masters and cancel the upload, and do a > new on, or is it possible to overwrite the uploaded package even tho the > version number would be lower? I imagine uploading an older version might be > difficult, latest when in reaches unstable. If fixing the build failure isn't feasible right now, you could contact the ftp-masters and ask for a reject, then upload the older version. There is no other way to get an older version into Debian. Once the package is accepted there isn't any proper way to make the version become older. There are two hacky/bad ways though 1) discuss the case on debian-devel and if you get consensus you can add an epoch 2) you can upload 0.1.1 as 0.1.2+really0.1.1 instead to make the version later than 0.1.2 but contain the code from 0.1.1. Both of these are not good ideas though. > If I should contact ftp masters, should this be done via bts pseudo package > or directly via mail? Usually on the #debian-ftp IRC channel on OFTC is a better option for this particular type of request. > PS: i am not subscribed to this ml, please keep me in cc when ansering ;) Done. PS: In future, when asking questions, please include specific details, including package names and excerpts of build logs etc. Advice is almost always better when given more information as input. -- bye, pabs https://wiki.debian.org/PaulWise
overriding package with older version in new queue
Hi, I have had a dependency for a package I am working on uploaded by a sponsor to new queue. I realised later that this package actually break the build, and that this can be solved by packaging _older_ version of the dependency package (that's also what upstream does. I am wondering how to fix this the right way: Should I or my sponsor contact ftp masters and cancel the upload, and do a new on, or is it possible to overwrite the uploaded package even tho the version number would be lower? I imagine uploading an older version might be difficult, latest when in reaches unstable. If I should contact ftp masters, should this be done via bts pseudo package or directly via mail? kind regards, peymaneh PS: i am not subscribed to this ml, please keep me in cc when ansering ;)
libjreen in NEW queue
Dear mentors, my package libjreen was uploaded to the NEW queue on 09.Dec 2015. Until now the package is waiting there. Is this quite normal or is something wrong with this package? I'm asking because I want to work on the tomahawk-player package but without this dependency, I'm unable to continue. Best regards, Stefan Ahlers
Re: libjreen in NEW queue
On Mon, Jan 18, 2016 at 02:18:11PM +0100, Stefan Ahlers wrote: > my package libjreen was uploaded to the NEW queue on 09.Dec 2015. Until > now the package is waiting there. Is this quite normal or is something > wrong with this package? It's completely normal. One month waiting in NEW is totally ok and to be expected. As you can see on https://ftp-master.debian.org/new.html there are packages waiting for 5 months. Usually the waiting time is something in between 1 and 4 months, anyway, 5 looks weird. > I'm asking because I want to work on the tomahawk-player package but > without this dependency, I'm unable to continue. Well, there are ways to work with dependencies not in the archive (depends on your workflow). -- regards, Mattia Rizzolo GPG Key: 66AE 2B4A FCCF 3F52 DA18 4D18 4B04 3FCD B944 4540 .''`. more about me: http://mapreri.org : :' : Launchpad user: https://launchpad.net/~mapreri `. `'` Debian QA page: https://qa.debian.org/developer.php?login=mattia `- signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Re: libjreen in NEW queue
hi, I asked on irc #-ftp to review it if possible. BTW you might even want to rename it as src:jreen in a future upload (whenever accepted). (note: the development binary library packages should still be libjreen*) cheers, Gianfranco Il Lunedì 18 Gennaio 2016 14:36, Stefan Ahlers <stef.ahl...@t-online.de> ha scritto: Dear mentors, my package libjreen was uploaded to the NEW queue on 09.Dec 2015. Until now the package is waiting there. Is this quite normal or is something wrong with this package? I'm asking because I want to work on the tomahawk-player package but without this dependency, I'm unable to continue. Best regards, Stefan Ahlers
Bug#794187: closed by Gianfranco Costamagna costamagnagianfra...@yahoo.it (uploaded on new queue)
Hi the issue comes from patch: add-license-info.patch The patch is patching author's source files with author's original copyright declaration in the global LICENSE file and the one in head of progress.c . The patch was sent to author days ago and we (Asias and me) are waiting for author to reply. Asias told me that to be extremely careful about license, hence this patch is not serious, when shipped with debian package... well... the whole package is GPL-3+ as per LICENSE file. Adding it to the source files is good, but not needed, since the whole license is the same. I do not foresee any trouble here :) We can reupload if ftpmasters reject the package :) cheers, G.
Bug#794187: closed by Gianfranco Costamagna costamagnagianfra...@yahoo.it (uploaded on new queue)
Oops That package is good except for one thing: the issue comes from patch: add-license-info.patch The patch is patching author's source files with author's original copyright declaration in the global LICENSE file and the one in head of progress.c . The patch was sent to author days ago and we (Asias and me) are waiting for author to reply. Asias told me that to be extremely careful about license, hence this patch is not serious, when shipped with debian package... well... On Tue, 2015-08-18 at 08:24 +, Debian Bug Tracking System wrote: This is an automatic notification regarding your Bug report which was filed against the sponsorship-requests package: #794187: RFS: progress/0.8-1 [ITP] (it is formerly known as 'cv')) It has been closed by Gianfranco Costamagna costamagnagianfra...@yahoo.it. Their explanation is attached below along with your original report. If this explanation is unsatisfactory and you have not received a better one in a separate message then please contact Gianfranco Costamagna costamagnagianfra...@yahoo.it by replying to this email. signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part
Package in new queue needs update
One of my packages is in the new queue, and now it needs a tiny change (a library it build-depends on changes it's package name). Can I use the same Debian revision for the updated package or do I have to bump the revision number (or is there anything else to do this)? TIA, gregor -- .''`. http://info.comodo.priv.at/ | gpg key ID: 0x00F3CFE4 : :' : infos zur usenet-hierarchie at.*: http://www.usenet.at/ `. `' member of https://www.vibe.at/ | how to reply: http://got.to/quote/ `-Bones: The man's DEAD, Jim! -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Package in new queue needs update
On Wed, Mar 15, 2006 at 02:17:17PM +0100, gregor herrmann wrote: One of my packages is in the new queue, and now it needs a tiny change (a library it build-depends on changes it's package name). Can I use the same Debian revision for the updated package or do I have to bump the revision number (or is there anything else to do this)? Simply upload new package with bumped revision number. There are plenty of such packages in NEW queue. Just take a look at http://ftp-master.debian.org/new.html regards fEnIo -- ,''`. Bartosz Fenski | mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] | pgp:0x13fefc40 | irc:fEnIo : :' : 32-050 Skawina - Glowackiego 3/15 - w. malopolskie - Poland `. `' phone:+48602383548 | proud Debian maintainer and user `- http://skawina.eu.org | jid:[EMAIL PROTECTED] | rlu:172001 signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: Package in new queue needs update
* gregor herrmann [Wed, 15 Mar 2006 14:17:17 +0100]: One of my packages is in the new queue, and now it needs a tiny change (a library it build-depends on changes it's package name). Can I use the same Debian revision for the updated package or do I have to bump the revision number (or is there anything else to do this)? Bump. You can only use the same one if it's been rejected, afaik. -- Adeodato Simó dato at net.com.org.es Debian Developer adeodato at debian.org Any life, no matter how long and complex it may be, is made up of a single moment: the moment in which a man finds out, once and for all, who he is. -- Jorge Luis Borges -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Package in new queue needs update
On Wed, Mar 15, 2006 at 06:52:43PM +0100, Bartosz Fenski aka fEnIo wrote: On Wed, Mar 15, 2006 at 02:17:17PM +0100, gregor herrmann wrote: One of my packages is in the new queue, and now it needs a tiny change [..] Simply upload new package with bumped revision number. There are plenty of such packages in NEW queue. Just take a look at http://ftp-master.debian.org/new.html On Wed, Mar 15, 2006 at 06:53:27PM +0100, Adeodato Simó wrote: Bump. You can only use the same one if it's been rejected, afaik. Thanks for your help to both of you, I've increased the Debian revision now together with the fix. Cheers, gregor -- .''`. http://info.comodo.priv.at/ | gpg key ID: 0x00F3CFE4 : :' : infos zur usenet-hierarchie at.*: http://www.usenet.at/ `. `' member of https://www.vibe.at/ | how to reply: http://got.to/quote/ `-NP: Ben Weaver - Ocean ain't blue signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: NEW queue
--- Kai Hendry [EMAIL PROTECTED] escribió: http://hendry.iki.fi/debian/unstable/webpy_0.135-1.diff.gz doesn't have a required 'build' target, which IMO is sufficient reason to reject the upload. What should it be? 386? I think it refers to this: http://www.debian.org/doc/debian-policy/ch-source.html#s-debianrules debian/rules is a makefile script with different rules that must do different things. For what I've read in the mail, it seems that the build: target is missing. The build target should perform all the configuration and compilation of the package. debian/rules in your diff only have the following targets for what I can see: clean, install, binary-indep, binary Is it my imagination or binary-arch doesn't exist either? Greetings, Miry __ LLama Gratis a cualquier PC del Mundo. Llamadas a fijos y móviles desde 1 céntimo por minuto. http://es.voice.yahoo.com -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: NEW queue
On 2006-03-08T09:00+0100 Miriam Ruiz wrote: Is it my imagination or binary-arch doesn't exist either? Isn't that what .PHONY is for? sam$ egrep PHONY webpy-0.135/debian/rules .PHONY: build clean binary-indep binary-arch binary install configure Best wishes, -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: NEW queue
Not exactly, AFAIK: http://theory.uwinnipeg.ca/localfiles/infofiles/make/make_33.html A phony target is one that is not really the name of a file. It is just a name for some commands to be executed when you make an explicit request. There are two reasons to use a phony target: to avoid a conflict with a file of the same name, and to improve performance. The phony target will cease to work if anything ever does create a file named `clean' in this directory. Since it has no dependencies, the file `clean' would inevitably be considered up to date, and its commands would not be executed. To avoid this problem, you can explicitly declare the target to be phony, using the special target .PHONY Greetings, Miry --- Kai Hendry [EMAIL PROTECTED] escribió: On 2006-03-08T09:00+0100 Miriam Ruiz wrote: Is it my imagination or binary-arch doesn't exist either? Isn't that what .PHONY is for? sam$ egrep PHONY webpy-0.135/debian/rules .PHONY: build clean binary-indep binary-arch binary install configure Best wishes, __ LLama Gratis a cualquier PC del Mundo. Llamadas a fijos y móviles desde 1 céntimo por minuto. http://es.voice.yahoo.com -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: NEW queue
On Wed, Mar 08, 2006 at 05:48:45PM +0900, Kai Hendry wrote: On 2006-03-08T09:00+0100 Miriam Ruiz wrote: Is it my imagination or binary-arch doesn't exist either? Isn't that what .PHONY is for? No; .PHONY is a list of rules which exist, but do not cause files of that name to be created http://www.gnu.org/software/make/manual/html_mono/make.html#SEC41 Justin -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: NEW queue
Peter Samuelson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: [Kai Hendry] My package webpy has been in the NEW queue for a couple of weeks ... Is that for a particular reason, or does it usually take that long? You're spoiled - it used to be common for packages to sit in NEW for a month or more. These days the ftpmasters are quite a bit faster. Still, they do NEW processing when they happen to have time. Two weeks isn't unusual. It'd be nice if they cleared the queue out every day, but that's not a realistic expectation. They process NEW binary packages quite fast, within one to three days to my impression. Regards, Frank -- Frank Küster Single Molecule Spectroscopy, Protein Folding @ Inst. f. Biochemie, Univ. Zürich Debian Developer (teTeX)
Re: NEW queue
On 2006-03-07, Frank Küster [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: They process NEW binary packages quite fast, within one to three days to my impression. that _WAS_ also my impression ... but having a package stuck for more than two months without any notices have changed my impression. (look on top-8 on NEW - simple package, no controversial stuff) /Sune -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: NEW queue
On 2006-03-07T01:04-0500 Justin Pryzby wrote: But I suspect that it might be the Affero license. I specified non-free. With hope of it being re-licensed or Affero accepted in the future. Is there a bug list somewhere associated with ftp.debian.org on the Web? http://bugs.debian.org/ftp.debian.org BTW, the rules file at http://hendry.iki.fi/debian/unstable/webpy_0.135-1.diff.gz doesn't have a required 'build' target, which IMO is sufficient reason to reject the upload. What should it be? 386? Best wishes, -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
NEW queue
My package webpy has been in the NEW queue for a couple of weeks: http://ftp-master.debian.org/new.html Is that for a particular reason, or does it usually take that long? Is there a bug list somewhere associated with ftp.debian.org on the Web? signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: NEW queue
[Kai Hendry] My package webpy has been in the NEW queue for a couple of weeks ... Is that for a particular reason, or does it usually take that long? You're spoiled - it used to be common for packages to sit in NEW for a month or more. These days the ftpmasters are quite a bit faster. Still, they do NEW processing when they happen to have time. Two weeks isn't unusual. It'd be nice if they cleared the queue out every day, but that's not a realistic expectation. Is there a bug list somewhere associated with ftp.debian.org on the Web? http://bugs.debian.org/ftp.debian.org signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: NEW queue
On Tue, Mar 07, 2006 at 02:48:35PM +0900, Kai Hendry wrote: My package webpy has been in the NEW queue for a couple of weeks: http://ftp-master.debian.org/new.html Is that for a particular reason, or does it usually take that long? 2 weeks isn't too bad; I guess it was much worse in the past. But I suspect that it might be the Affero license. Is there a bug list somewhere associated with ftp.debian.org on the Web? http://bugs.debian.org/ftp.debian.org BTW, the rules file at http://hendry.iki.fi/debian/unstable/webpy_0.135-1.diff.gz doesn't have a required 'build' target, which IMO is sufficient reason to reject the upload. Justin -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
