Re: RFS: bfilter - unwarranted NMU
On Wed, 24 Dec 2008 14:16:54 +0100 Hámorszky Balázs balihb@gmail.com wrote: Dear mentors, I am looking for a sponsor for the new version 1.1.4-1.1 of the package bfilter. There is a bug in bfilter causes in firefox to pop up a download window. http://prxbx.com/forums/showthread.php?tid=1043 there is an upstream fix for it, that I've submitted to as a bugreport to debian a long time a go, but I've received no reply. http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=496526 So, I've decided to make a NMU. This package is not marked as lowNMU threshold, the bug is not relevant to the Lenny release, the package is not orphaned, there is no indication in the bug report that you have prepared an NMU and you have not waited for the maintainer to respond to the NMU request (as you haven't made it) - why are you considering an NMU? You couldn't even be bothered to describe the problem within the bug report itself, merely linking to some other site that supposedly describes the 'issue'. I've also fixed a few lintinan warnings. Not a good enough reason - yes, if this was an orphaned package or you had proof that the maintainer is MIA. The package can be found on mentors.debian.net: - URL: http://mentors.debian.net/debian/pool/main/b/bfilter - Source repository: deb-src http://mentors.debian.net/debian unstable main contrib non-free - dget http://mentors.debian.net/debian/pool/main/b/bfilter/bfilter_1.1.4-1.1.dsc I would be glad if someone uploaded this package for me. I doubt that Vedran would be quite so pleased. This is another upload to mentors that should be summarily removed for blatant disregard for Policy. -- Neil Williams = http://www.data-freedom.org/ http://www.nosoftwarepatents.com/ http://www.linux.codehelp.co.uk/ pgptC3wgDHYu3.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: RFS: bfilter - unwarranted NMU
On Wed, 24 Dec 2008 13:39:26 + Neil Williams codeh...@debian.org wrote: So, I've decided to make a NMU. This package is not marked as lowNMU threshold, the bug is not relevant to the Lenny release, the package is not orphaned, there is no indication in the bug report that you have prepared an NMU and you have not waited for the maintainer to respond to the NMU request (as you haven't made it) - why are you considering an NMU? You couldn't even be bothered to describe the problem within the bug report itself, merely linking to some other site that supposedly describes the 'issue'. The package can be found on mentors.debian.net: - URL: http://mentors.debian.net/debian/pool/main/b/bfilter - Source repository: deb-src http://mentors.debian.net/debian unstable main contrib non-free - dget http://mentors.debian.net/debian/pool/main/b/bfilter/bfilter_1.1.4-1.1.dsc I would be glad if someone uploaded this package for me. I doubt that Vedran would be quite so pleased. This is another upload to mentors that should be summarily removed for blatant disregard for Policy. After looking at the referenced report about this bug, I'm not at all convinced that this 'bug' even needs a fix - there is a clear workaround documented in the thread linked from the bug report and people claiming that the workaround works. Do you have evidence that the workaround does not work? As this is the only evidence provided in the bug report that the bug even exists, I find it doubtful that the bug is worth fixing as maintainer, let alone as an NMU. If this was my package, I'd probably have replied but I wouldn't accept an NMU. I'd be tempted to implement the workaround, thoroughly test it, feed that back to the bug report and leave it at that. AFAICT the bug as described is minor severity at best (I'd describe it as 'trivial'), the appears to be a working fix that does not involve changing the package (let alone an NMU) and there is no justification for any NMU. I can't see any reason why you spent any time devising an NMU for such a bug. -- Neil Williams = http://www.data-freedom.org/ http://www.linux.codehelp.co.uk/ http://e-mail.is-not-s.ms/ pgpxNWtLmuEzy.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: RFS: bfilter - unwarranted NMU
Neil Williams wrote: I doubt that Vedran would be quite so pleased. This is another upload to mentors that should be summarily removed for blatant disregard for Policy. than I misconceived the policy. i can actually make an NMU without going through mentors even if I'm not a developer? I didn't done it out of ill will. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-mentors-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Re: RFS: bfilter - unwarranted NMU
On Wed, 24 Dec 2008 15:15:36 +0100 Hámorszky Balázs balihb@gmail.com wrote: Neil Williams wrote: I doubt that Vedran would be quite so pleased. This is another upload to mentors that should be summarily removed for blatant disregard for Policy. than I misconceived the policy. i can actually make an NMU without going through mentors even if I'm not a developer? NMU's can be made through mentors - that isn't the problem. You still need to follow the guidance in the Developer Reference: http://www.uk.debian.org/doc/developers-reference/pkgs.html#nmu During a release freeze, bugs that are severity normal or less are rarely worth an NMU and you've also targetted unstable which isn't a good idea during the release freeze. I didn't done it out of ill will. Fine, but you haven't explained why you want to do it now rather than waiting for after the Lenny release (which may well be what the maintainer is doing). The imperative now is to get the full details into the bug report and wait. So far, the maintainer has had no communication from you since August, what makes you think he is willing to accept an NMU? In the meantime, the package should still be removed from mentors IMHO. -- Neil Williams = http://www.data-freedom.org/ http://www.linux.codehelp.co.uk/ http://e-mail.is-not-s.ms/ pgpQmtXKoMOWk.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: RFS: bfilter - unwarranted NMU
After looking at the referenced report about this bug, I'm not at all convinced that this 'bug' even needs a fix - there is a clear workaround documented in the thread linked from the bug report and people claiming that the workaround works. Do you have evidence that the workaround does not work? The workaround is per site solution. So one must add a line in urls.local for every ad site. The fix in the official svn (the one I've attached to the bugreport) fix it completely. I can't see any reason why you spent any time devising an NMU for such a bug. This bug is very annoying. On some/most pages it pops up more than one download window. If someone planing on using bfilter on lenny, than he/she must add all ad urls to the urls.local or recompile it from source. The point of bfilter contrary to adblock is that it don't need any blacklist to work. It's a so little fix and affect the usability of bfilter so much. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-mentors-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Re: RFS: bfilter - unwarranted NMU
On Wed, 24 Dec 2008 16:08:39 +0100 Hámorszky Balázs balihb@gmail.com wrote: After looking at the referenced report about this bug, I'm not at all convinced that this 'bug' even needs a fix - there is a clear workaround documented in the thread linked from the bug report and people claiming that the workaround works. Do you have evidence that the workaround does not work? The workaround is per site solution. So one must add a line in urls.local for every ad site. The fix in the official svn (the one I've attached to the bugreport) fix it completely. I can't see any reason why you spent any time devising an NMU for such a bug. This bug is very annoying. On some/most pages it pops up more than one download window. If someone planing on using bfilter on lenny, than he/she must add all ad urls to the urls.local or recompile it from source. The point of bfilter contrary to adblock is that it don't need any blacklist to work. It's a so little fix and affect the usability of bfilter so much. All of that should have been in the original bug report. Glad we managed to get to the bottom of it eventually. OK, so maybe it isn't minor as I thought - I agree it is normal severity and the Developer Reference does not include normal severity bugs in the list for NMU's. Annoying does not qualify as important and only important or higher qualifies for an NMU - unless the package is in the lowNMU list which this one is not. There are other ad block utilities for iceweasel - I guess the maintainer is waiting for the next upstream release. Sorry, I don't see that you can do any NMU for this package without explicit permission from the maintainer. If he doesn't reply or wants to wait, there is nothing you can do to fix this bug. You certainly cannot do anything without supplying more information in the bug report itself. The current bug is singularly unhelpful and lacking in content. Whichever way it works out, uploading to mentors was entirely the wrong thing to do and that version needs to be removed IMHO. -- Neil Williams = http://www.data-freedom.org/ http://www.linux.codehelp.co.uk/ http://e-mail.is-not-s.ms/ pgpSPpswBSst1.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: RFS: bfilter - unwarranted NMU
Neil Williams wrote: Whichever way it works out, uploading to mentors was entirely the wrong thing to do and that version needs to be removed IMHO. It's already done. I'll submit more info to the bug report and contact the developer of bfilter. I hope that he'll consider to release a new version. Thanks for all the help! -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-mentors-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
