Re: RFS: archivemount (updated package, 3rd try)
On Sat, May 28, 2011 at 03:07:56PM +0200, Sven Hoexter wrote: > On Sat, May 28, 2011 at 03:36:46PM +0300, Nanakos Chrysostomos wrote: > > > Re-uploaded to mentors.d.n > > Uploaded to the archive. Thank you very much for your time and effort in helping and sponsoring this package. > > Sven > -- > And I don't know much, but I do know this: > With a golden heart comes a rebel fist. > [ Streetlight Manifesto - Here's To Life ] > > > -- > 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/20110528130756.GC2340@marvin -- 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/20110528131035.ga27...@dinofilaria.home
Re: RFS: archivemount (updated package, 3rd try)
On Sat, May 28, 2011 at 03:36:46PM +0300, Nanakos Chrysostomos wrote: > Re-uploaded to mentors.d.n Uploaded to the archive. Sven -- And I don't know much, but I do know this: With a golden heart comes a rebel fist. [ Streetlight Manifesto - Here's To Life ] -- 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/20110528130756.GC2340@marvin
Re: RFS: archivemount (updated package, 3rd try)
On Sat, May 28, 2011 at 02:29:31PM +0200, Sven Hoexter wrote: > On Sat, May 28, 2011 at 02:48:59PM +0300, Nanakos Chrysostomos wrote: > > On Sat, May 28, 2011 at 01:26:02PM +0200, Sven Hoexter wrote: > > Hi, > > > > You should also check your changelog, beside closing a bug which > > > isn't fixed with arch kfreebsd-any the changelog only states the change > > > from > > > any to linux-any. The changes to debian/rules are also missing. > > > > I would like to keep my first change which was only linux-any. > > Yes, that's ok. > > > > What do you mean > > that the changes to debian/rules are missing? I have made the changes you > > proposed > > and added the reverse one in clean. No more lintian errors. Maybe I'm > > missing > > something here, please enlighten me. > > You made changes to debian/control and debian/rules and they're not documented > in debian/changelog. I'd think of something like this: > > * Change the dependency on fuse-utils to fuse (>=2.8.5-2). Since > fuse 2.8.5-2 fuse-utils package is only a transitional dummy package. > * Change debian/rules to keep a backup copy of config.guess in the > configure target which will be restored in the clean target, to keep > the diff.gz clean. > > Maybe that's a bit too verbose, but it helps to recap later, why those > changes were made. > Fixed. Thanks! > > > I hope this time everything is fine and the package could be sponsored. > > Very close, beside the changelog everything else looks ok. Re-uploaded to mentors.d.n > > Sven > -- > And I don't know much, but I do know this: > With a golden heart comes a rebel fist. > [ Streetlight Manifesto - Here's To Life ] > > > -- > 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/20110528122931.GB2340@marvin -- 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/20110528123646.gb4...@dinofilaria.home
Re: RFS: archivemount (updated package, 3rd try)
On Sat, May 28, 2011 at 02:48:59PM +0300, Nanakos Chrysostomos wrote: > On Sat, May 28, 2011 at 01:26:02PM +0200, Sven Hoexter wrote: Hi, > > You should also check your changelog, beside closing a bug which > > isn't fixed with arch kfreebsd-any the changelog only states the change from > > any to linux-any. The changes to debian/rules are also missing. > > I would like to keep my first change which was only linux-any. Yes, that's ok. > What do you mean > that the changes to debian/rules are missing? I have made the changes you > proposed > and added the reverse one in clean. No more lintian errors. Maybe I'm missing > something here, please enlighten me. You made changes to debian/control and debian/rules and they're not documented in debian/changelog. I'd think of something like this: * Change the dependency on fuse-utils to fuse (>=2.8.5-2). Since fuse 2.8.5-2 fuse-utils package is only a transitional dummy package. * Change debian/rules to keep a backup copy of config.guess in the configure target which will be restored in the clean target, to keep the diff.gz clean. Maybe that's a bit too verbose, but it helps to recap later, why those changes were made. > I hope this time everything is fine and the package could be sponsored. Very close, beside the changelog everything else looks ok. Sven -- And I don't know much, but I do know this: With a golden heart comes a rebel fist. [ Streetlight Manifesto - Here's To Life ] -- 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/20110528122931.GB2340@marvin
Re: RFS: archivemount (updated package, 3rd try)
On Sat, May 28, 2011 at 01:26:02PM +0200, Sven Hoexter wrote: > On Sat, May 28, 2011 at 11:48:39AM +0300, Nanakos Chrysostomos wrote: > > On Sat, May 28, 2011 at 08:53:33AM +0200, Sven Hoexter wrote: > Hi, > Hi, > > > > The original problem was that fuse-utils wasn't available on kfreebsd > > The problem was not in kfreebsd but in hurd-i386. > > I have the slight feeling we're talking about different issue here. > > According to #613119, which you even close in your changelog, it's been > about kfreebsd, and as far as I can tell there's been no fuse-utils package > on kfreebsd nor hurd and there is now no fuse package on both of them. > So this problem isn't solved at all. > Yes, the problem remains on both of them. > I currently can't say if archivemount is of any use without the rest of > the fuse tools or not. Looking at the blocking bug #613300 I don't think > it is but I've not digged that deep yet. If it is indeed useful to have > on kfreebsd without fuse the dependency has to be adjusted accordingly > [!kfreebsd-i386 !kfreebsd-amd64]. Otherwise using linux-any seems to be > a good solution, it's not worth to build a package on architectures where > it can't be used anyway. As I can see the solution is using linux-any at the moment. > > > > The problem still remains even if Daniel Baumann has adopted and > > uploaded a new version of the fuse package. Please check [0] again to see > > that the status of hurd-i386 architecture has a dependency installability. > > So even with this change archivemount will remain in the current state > > and useless for all linux users. I prefer the package to be sponsored > > and used for now only from linux and kfreebsd users and when everything is > > ready we will upload the package again including the missing architecture. > > I included kfreebsd-any in the Architecture Field and re-uploaded the > > package. > > Please bare in mind that the package remains in the current state for more > > than 300 days waiting fuse-utils for the hurd-i386 arch. > > Uh since when is hurd a release architecture? The migration seems to be > stopped by the RC bug mentioned above.i You are right. > > > > > only a dummy package. This requires some re-evaluation of the situation > > > and > > > adjustmend of the archivemount depends. > > > > Do we need that for the moment? > > IMO it would make sense to do it now while you're at it, I'd guess that > Daniel would like to fate out the old fuse-utils package sooner or later > anyway. So switching now to a versioned depends on fuse >=2.8.5-2 is IMO > reasonable. > It seems reasonable. Fixed already. > Beside that: > There's still lintian barking at the issue with the description. I'm not sure > if lintian is 100% right there and if the deselect issue is still present but > double spaces in front of the * should do the trick. IMHO all the (useless) > dotted empty lines are a bit ugly, I would revert that. > Fixed by simply adding double spaces in front of the *. > You should also check your changelog, beside closing a bug which > isn't fixed with arch kfreebsd-any the changelog only states the change from > any to linux-any. The changes to debian/rules are also missing. I would like to keep my first change which was only linux-any. What do you mean that the changes to debian/rules are missing? I have made the changes you proposed and added the reverse one in clean. No more lintian errors. Maybe I'm missing something here, please enlighten me. I hope this time everything is fine and the package could be sponsored. Package re-uploaded to mentors. Cheers, Chris. > > Sven > -- > And I don't know much, but I do know this: > With a golden heart comes a rebel fist. > [ Streetlight Manifesto - Here's To Life ] > > > -- > 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/20110528112602.GA2340@marvin -- 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/20110528114859.ga4...@dinofilaria.home
Re: RFS: archivemount (updated package, 3rd try)
On Sat, May 28, 2011 at 11:48:39AM +0300, Nanakos Chrysostomos wrote: > On Sat, May 28, 2011 at 08:53:33AM +0200, Sven Hoexter wrote: Hi, > > The original problem was that fuse-utils wasn't available on kfreebsd > The problem was not in kfreebsd but in hurd-i386. I have the slight feeling we're talking about different issue here. According to #613119, which you even close in your changelog, it's been about kfreebsd, and as far as I can tell there's been no fuse-utils package on kfreebsd nor hurd and there is now no fuse package on both of them. So this problem isn't solved at all. I currently can't say if archivemount is of any use without the rest of the fuse tools or not. Looking at the blocking bug #613300 I don't think it is but I've not digged that deep yet. If it is indeed useful to have on kfreebsd without fuse the dependency has to be adjusted accordingly [!kfreebsd-i386 !kfreebsd-amd64]. Otherwise using linux-any seems to be a good solution, it's not worth to build a package on architectures where it can't be used anyway. > The problem still remains even if Daniel Baumann has adopted and > uploaded a new version of the fuse package. Please check [0] again to see > that the status of hurd-i386 architecture has a dependency installability. > So even with this change archivemount will remain in the current state > and useless for all linux users. I prefer the package to be sponsored > and used for now only from linux and kfreebsd users and when everything is > ready we will upload the package again including the missing architecture. > I included kfreebsd-any in the Architecture Field and re-uploaded the package. > Please bare in mind that the package remains in the current state for more > than 300 days waiting fuse-utils for the hurd-i386 arch. Uh since when is hurd a release architecture? The migration seems to be stopped by the RC bug mentioned above. > > only a dummy package. This requires some re-evaluation of the situation and > > adjustmend of the archivemount depends. > > Do we need that for the moment? IMO it would make sense to do it now while you're at it, I'd guess that Daniel would like to fate out the old fuse-utils package sooner or later anyway. So switching now to a versioned depends on fuse >=2.8.5-2 is IMO reasonable. Beside that: There's still lintian barking at the issue with the description. I'm not sure if lintian is 100% right there and if the deselect issue is still present but double spaces in front of the * should do the trick. IMHO all the (useless) dotted empty lines are a bit ugly, I would revert that. You should also check your changelog, beside closing a bug which isn't fixed with arch kfreebsd-any the changelog only states the change from any to linux-any. The changes to debian/rules are also missing. Sven -- And I don't know much, but I do know this: With a golden heart comes a rebel fist. [ Streetlight Manifesto - Here's To Life ] -- 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/20110528112602.GA2340@marvin
Re: RFS: archivemount (updated package, 3rd try)
On Sat, May 28, 2011 at 08:53:33AM +0200, Sven Hoexter wrote: > On Sat, May 28, 2011 at 12:35:43PM +0600, Andrey Rahmatullin wrote: > > On Fri, May 27, 2011 at 11:29:49PM +0300, Nanakos Chrysostomos wrote: > > > Will this upload resolve the problem of compiling only > > > to linux and kfreebsd and exclude hurd-i386 architecture? > > > I changed Architecture Field from any to linux-any. > > kfreebsd is not linux so setting linux-any you excluded it. > > I think you need to narrow the arch field only when the code *fails to > > compile* because, for example, of some linux-only syscall. When it doesn't > > build because of missing build-deps, that may change in the future so I > > don't do anything (I'm quite new to Debian packaging so I may be wrong > > though). Hi, > > The original problem was that fuse-utils wasn't available on kfreebsd The problem was not in kfreebsd but in hurd-i386. > (according to the bugreport). Just yesterday(?) Daniel Baumann adopted > fuse and changed the package contents and currently fuse-utils is The problem still remains even if Daniel Baumann has adopted and uploaded a new version of the fuse package. Please check [0] again to see that the status of hurd-i386 architecture has a dependency installability. So even with this change archivemount will remain in the current state and useless for all linux users. I prefer the package to be sponsored and used for now only from linux and kfreebsd users and when everything is ready we will upload the package again including the missing architecture. I included kfreebsd-any in the Architecture Field and re-uploaded the package. Please bare in mind that the package remains in the current state for more than 300 days waiting fuse-utils for the hurd-i386 arch. > only a dummy package. This requires some re-evaluation of the situation and > adjustmend of the archivemount depends. Do we need that for the moment? Thanks in advance [0]: https://buildd.debian.org/status/package.php?p=fuse > > Sven > -- > I don't know much, but I do know this: > With a golden heart, comes a rebel fist > [ Streetlight Manifesto - Here's To Life ] > > > -- > 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/20110528065332.GA1834@colin -- 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/20110528084839.ga3...@dinofilaria.home
Re: RFS: archivemount (updated package, 3rd try)
On Sat, May 28, 2011 at 12:35:43PM +0600, Andrey Rahmatullin wrote: > On Fri, May 27, 2011 at 11:29:49PM +0300, Nanakos Chrysostomos wrote: > > Will this upload resolve the problem of compiling only > > to linux and kfreebsd and exclude hurd-i386 architecture? > > I changed Architecture Field from any to linux-any. > kfreebsd is not linux so setting linux-any you excluded it. > I think you need to narrow the arch field only when the code *fails to > compile* because, for example, of some linux-only syscall. When it doesn't > build because of missing build-deps, that may change in the future so I > don't do anything (I'm quite new to Debian packaging so I may be wrong > though). The original problem was that fuse-utils wasn't available on kfreebsd (according to the bugreport). Just yesterday(?) Daniel Baumann adopted fuse and changed the package contents and currently fuse-utils is only a dummy package. This requires some re-evaluation of the situation and adjustmend of the archivemount depends. Sven -- I don't know much, but I do know this: With a golden heart, comes a rebel fist [ Streetlight Manifesto - Here's To Life ] -- 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/20110528065332.GA1834@colin
Re: RFS: archivemount (updated package, 3rd try)
On Fri, May 27, 2011 at 11:29:49PM +0300, Nanakos Chrysostomos wrote: > Will this upload resolve the problem of compiling only > to linux and kfreebsd and exclude hurd-i386 architecture? > I changed Architecture Field from any to linux-any. kfreebsd is not linux so setting linux-any you excluded it. I think you need to narrow the arch field only when the code *fails to compile* because, for example, of some linux-only syscall. When it doesn't build because of missing build-deps, that may change in the future so I don't do anything (I'm quite new to Debian packaging so I may be wrong though). -- WBR, wRAR signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: RFS: archivemount (updated package, 3rd try)
On Fri, May 27, 2011 at 09:39:57PM +0200, Sven Hoexter wrote: > On Fri, May 27, 2011 at 06:07:55PM +0300, Nanakos Chrysostomos wrote: > > Hi, > > > The package is lintian clean (Lintian v2.5.0~rc3) but it not reports > > (post pbuilder build, lintian 2.5.0 but that shouldn't make a big > difference for those warnings) > $ lintian -iIv archivemount_0.6.1-2_i386.changes > N: Processing source package archivemount (version 0.6.1-2) ... > W: archivemount source: format-3.0-but-debian-changes-patch > [...] > N: Processing binary package archivemount (version 0.6.1-2) ... > W: archivemount: possible-unindented-list-in-extended-description > > > The first one is the config.sub replacement. What about using something > like the following for your configure target: > set -e; if ! [ -f config/config.sub.backup ]; then \ > mv config/config.sub config/config.sub.backup; \ > ln -s /usr/share/misc/config.sub config/config.sub; \ > fi > > And kind of the reverse for the clean target. Hi Sven, fixed and re-uploaded to mentors. One question please. Will this upload resolve the problem of compiling only to linux and kfreebsd and exclude hurd-i386 architecture? I changed Architecture Field from any to linux-any. Thanks in advance, Chris. > > Sven > -- > And I don't know much, but I do know this: > With a golden heart comes a rebel fist. > [ Streetlight Manifesto - Here's To Life ] > > > -- > 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/20110527193957.GE2197@marvin -- 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/20110527202949.ga4...@dinofilaria.home
Re: RFS: archivemount (updated package, 3rd try)
On Fri, May 27, 2011 at 09:39:57PM +0200, Sven Hoexter wrote: > The first one is the config.sub replacement. What about using something > like the following for your configure target: > set -e; if ! [ -f config/config.sub.backup ]; then \ > mv config/config.sub config/config.sub.backup; \ > ln -s /usr/share/misc/config.sub config/config.sub; \ > fi > > And kind of the reverse for the clean target. autotools_dev dh addon and related executables (from autotools-dev package) are made specifically for this purpose. -- WBR, wRAR signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: RFS: archivemount (updated package, 3rd try)
On Fri, May 27, 2011 at 06:07:55PM +0300, Nanakos Chrysostomos wrote: Hi, > The package is lintian clean (Lintian v2.5.0~rc3) but it not reports (post pbuilder build, lintian 2.5.0 but that shouldn't make a big difference for those warnings) $ lintian -iIv archivemount_0.6.1-2_i386.changes N: Processing source package archivemount (version 0.6.1-2) ... W: archivemount source: format-3.0-but-debian-changes-patch [...] N: Processing binary package archivemount (version 0.6.1-2) ... W: archivemount: possible-unindented-list-in-extended-description The first one is the config.sub replacement. What about using something like the following for your configure target: set -e; if ! [ -f config/config.sub.backup ]; then \ mv config/config.sub config/config.sub.backup; \ ln -s /usr/share/misc/config.sub config/config.sub; \ fi And kind of the reverse for the clean target. Sven -- And I don't know much, but I do know this: With a golden heart comes a rebel fist. [ Streetlight Manifesto - Here's To Life ] -- 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/20110527193957.GE2197@marvin
RFS: archivemount (updated package, 3rd try)
Dear mentors, I am looking for a sponsor for the new version 0.6.1-2 of my package "archivemount". It builds these binary packages: archivemount - mounts an archive for access as a file system The upload would fix these bugs: 613119 The package is lintian clean (Lintian v2.5.0~rc3) but it not reports the same in mentors.debian.net website. Maybe lintian version needs to be updated. The package can be found on mentors.debian.net: - URL: http://mentors.debian.net/debian/pool/main/a/archivemount - Source repository: deb-src http://mentors.debian.net/debian unstable main contrib non-free - dget http://mentors.debian.net/debian/pool/main/a/archivemount/archivemount_0.6.1-2.dsc I would be glad if someone uploaded this package for me. Kind regards Nanakos Chrysostomos signature.asc Description: Digital signature
