RFS: xfe (updated package with some fixes) (2nd try)
Dear mentors, I am looking for a sponsor for the new version 1.32.1-5 of my package xfe. It builds these binary packages: xfe- A lightweight file manager for X11 xfe-i18n - A lightweight file manager for X11 (i18n support) xfe-themes - A lightweight file manager for X11 (themes) The package appears to be lintian clean. The upload would fix these bugs: 570205, 591217, 593215 The package can be found on mentors.debian.net: - URL: http://mentors.debian.net/debian/pool/main/x/xfe - Source repository: deb-src http://mentors.debian.net/debian unstable main - dget http://mentors.debian.net/debian/pool/main/x/xfe/xfe_1.32.1-5.dsc I would be glad if someone uploaded this package for me. And I would be most grateful if a kind sponsor would set the DM-Upload-Allowed (DMUA) bit. FYI here is the last changelog entry: * debian/patches: - Set gnomeblue-theme as default as defined upstream (patch removed). - Update of german translation (thanks to Jens Körner). * debian/control: - Set package xfe-themes as dependency of package xfe. (Closes: #570205) - Remove unsupported Bugs field. (Closes: #591217) - Update xfe package dependency to audacious ( 2.3-1). - Use 'Breaks:' field instead of 'Conflicts:' field. - Bump to Standards version 3.9.1. - Remove Uploader (was no Co-Maintainer). * Use correct upstream licenses in debian/copyright and use new format. * Remove obsolete file debian/README.source. * Fix open error with program xfpack. (Closes: #593215) Kind regards Joachim Wiedorn signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Re: RFS: xfe (updated package with some fixes) (2nd try)
Joachim Wiedorn ad_deb...@joonet.de writes: I am looking for a sponsor for the new version 1.32.1-5 of my package xfe. It builds these binary packages: xfe- A lightweight file manager for X11 xfe-i18n - A lightweight file manager for X11 (i18n support) xfe-themes - A lightweight file manager for X11 (themes) The package appears to be lintian clean. The upload would fix these bugs: 570205, 591217, 593215 The package can be found on mentors.debian.net: - URL: http://mentors.debian.net/debian/pool/main/x/xfe - Source repository: deb-src http://mentors.debian.net/debian unstable main - dget http://mentors.debian.net/debian/pool/main/x/xfe/xfe_1.32.1-5.dsc Uploading -- 9FED 5C6C E206 B70A 5857 70CA 9655 22B9 D49A E731 Debian Developer | Lisp Hacker | CaCert Assurer A. Because it breaks the logical sequence of discussion Q. Why is top posting bad? pgprZombCJHUE.pgp Description: PGP signature
RFS: xfe (updated package)
Dear mentors, I am looking for a sponsor for the new version 1.32.1-5 of my package xfe. It builds these binary packages: xfe- A lightweight file manager for X11 xfe-i18n - A lightweight file manager for X11 (i18n support) xfe-themes - A lightweight file manager for X11 (themes) The package appears to be lintian clean. The upload would fix these bugs: 570205, 591217, 593215 The package can be found on mentors.debian.net: - URL: http://mentors.debian.net/debian/pool/main/x/xfe - Source repository: deb-src http://mentors.debian.net/debian unstable main - dget http://mentors.debian.net/debian/pool/main/x/xfe/xfe_1.32.1-5.dsc I would be glad if someone uploaded this package for me. And I would be most grateful if a kind sponsor would set the DM-Upload-Allowed (DMUA) bit. FYI here is the last changelog entry: * debian/patches: - Set gnomeblue-theme as default as defined upstream (patch removed). - Update of german translation (thanks to Jens Körner). * debian/control: - Set package xfe-themes as dependency of package xfe. (Closes: #570205) - Remove unsupported Bugs field. (Closes: #591217) - Update xfe package dependency to audacious ( 2.3-1). - Use 'Breaks:' field instead of 'Conflicts:' field. - Bump to Standards version 3.9.1. - Remove Uploader (was no Co-Maintainer). * Use correct upstream licenses in debian/copyright and use new format. * Remove obsolete file debian/README.source. * Fix open error with program xfpack. (Closes: #593215) Kind regards Joachim Wiedorn signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Re: RFS: xfe (updated package)
Hi, Joachim.
On Jan 29 2010, Joachim Wiedorn wrote:
The upload would fix this FTBFS bug: 560549
Now xfe can be compiled on GNU/kFreeBSD architectures.
Thanks for taking care of kfreebsd.
Regards,
--
Rogério Brito : rbr...@{ime.usp.br,gmail.com} : GPG key 1024D/7C2CAEB8
http://rb.doesntexist.org : Packages for LaTeX : algorithms.berlios.de
DebianQA: http://qa.debian.org/developer.php?login=rbrito%40ime.usp.br
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-mentors-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
RFS: xfe (updated package)
Dear mentors, I am looking for a sponsor for the new version 1.32.1-3 of my package xfe. It builds these binary packages: xfe- A lightweight file manager for X11 xfe-i18n - A lightweight file manager for X11 (i18n support) xfe-themes - A lightweight file manager for X11 (themes) The package appears to be lintian clean. The upload would fix this FTBFS bug: 560549 Now xfe can be compiled on GNU/kFreeBSD architectures. The package can be found on mentors.debian.net: - URL: http://mentors.debian.net/debian/pool/main/x/xfe - Source repository: deb-src http://mentors.debian.net/debian unstable main - dget http://mentors.debian.net/debian/pool/main/x/xfe/xfe_1.32.1-3.dsc I would be glad if someone uploaded this package for me. Kind regards Joachim Wiedorn signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Re: RFS: xfe (updated package)
On Fri, Jan 29, 2010 at 10:07:59PM +0100, Joachim Wiedorn wrote: I am looking for a sponsor for the new version 1.32.1-3 of my package xfe. The upload would fix this FTBFS bug: 560549 Now xfe can be compiled on GNU/kFreeBSD architectures. Jep builds + works fine on kfreebsd-i386 (build and tested there, now uploading soon-to-hit the archive. Regards Christoph -- /\ ASCII Ribbon : GPG-Key ID: 0xD49AE731 \ /Campaign : CaCert Assurer X against HTML : Debian Maintainer / \ in eMails : http://www.debian.org/ http://www.christoph-egger.org/ -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-mentors-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Re: RFS: xfe (updated package)
Hello Christoph, Christoph Egger christ...@debian.org wrote: Jep builds + works fine on kfreebsd-i386 (build and tested there, now uploading soon-to-hit the archive. Thanks for testing and uploading! Fondest regards, Joachim Wiedorn signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Re: RFS: xfe (updated package - new upstream release)
Hello Rogério,
Am Thu, 19 Nov 2009 04:45:42 -0200 schrieb
Rogério Brito rbr...@ime.usp.br:
You should still give a hint (a short phrase is enough) that other
people worked on the package and give them credit.
Done.
* you can remove comments from the watch file.
Some lines came from the template.
Just kill them. The templates serve as examples for people to know what
values to put in the appropriate fields.
Done.
* why do you have two patches to xferc? The patches have no comments on
them (See DEP-3).
I should use better names for patches.
Right. If you find some time, just put a description there so that
people that will possibly make a non-maintainer upload understand why
the patch is there.
Done.
* why does it get compiled with -O3? Why not -O2? Why not -Os
(especially useful for machines without a lot of cache).
I think this should be checked together with upstream - that's right?
No, this one should be fixed. Getting rid of the unconditional -O3, the
-ffast-math, -fomit-frame-pointer and so on should be done as a way to
control how the builds happen.
1 - Somebody may want to use the (Debian-policy described) variable
DEB_BUILD_OPTIONS=noopt to disable optimization (to hunt some potential
bug), but, as you package is right now, it always compiles with
optimizations turned on.
These options get set in configure and configure.in. You can change
those and convince upstream to flexibilize things a little bit.
The upstream author hase defined in configure[.in]:
if test x$enable_debug = xyes ; then
CXXFLAGS=${CXXFLAGS} -Wall -g -DDEBUG
elif test x$enable_release = xyes ; then
CXXFLAGS=${CXXFLAGS} -DNDEBUG
if test ${GXX} = yes ; then
CXXFLAGS=${CXXFLAGS} -O3 -Wuninitialized -ffast-math \
-fomit-frame-pointer -fno-strict-aliasing fi
else
CXXFLAGS=${CXXFLAGS} -O2
fi
Should I remove / reduce (per patch) this and define it in debian/rules?
At first step I have no enable_debug and no enable_release, so it
comes only with -O2.
* can't you compile the C++ code with -Wextra and -Weffc++? This way,
more warnings could be emitted and some potential bug that is lurking
there would just be discovered soon.
I can do it for testing. But I think this is the job for the upstream
developer, isn't it?
Yes, it is. But it already reveals some code improvements.
Ok, I will look for.
Oh, as a last point, just give a look at the output of lintian. It's
telling some things that are ultra-easy to fix.
Lintian seems clean (with version 2.2.18).
Thanks for your detailed support!
Fondest regards,
Joachim Wiedorn
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
Re: RFS: xfe (updated package - new upstream release)
Hi, Joachim.
On Nov 16 2009, Joachim Wiedorn wrote:
Ok, I have to include intltool in the build dependencies. Please can
you say me the other minor things, so I can check them, too.
Well, this is just a quick look at the package:
* the debian/README file talks about installation of some
programs; this is useless if you are installing a precompiled package,
because you, the maintainer, will have taken care of the dependencies.
* why not wrap the (build-)dependencies to leave one for each line,
easing the manipulation and readability?
* you mention on debian/copyright that you packaged the program, but the
changelog says that some other people worked on that. Can you clarify?
* you can remove comments from the watch file.
* why do you prefix some commands in debian/rules with a minus sign? Do
you want to ignore their error conditions? What about using something
like:
foo || /bin/true
? Why ignore the errors in the first place?
* some comments on debian/rules could be removed, couldn't they?
* in patch 01_no-mount-warning.patch, only linux is checked. What about
the kFreeBSD's? Any bug with them is now considered release critical.
Please, see if my comments apply or if they can be ignored.
* why do you have two patches to xferc? The patches have no comments on
them (See DEP-3).
* patch 05_names-in-xfedefs.patch replaces xmms with audacious. I think
that that should be audacious2.
* why does it get compiled with -O3? Why not -O2? Why not -Os
(especially useful for machines without a lot of cache).
* can't you compile the C++ code with -Wextra and -Weffc++? This way,
more warnings could be emitted and some potential bug that is lurking
there would just be discovered soon.
Anyway, thank you very much for xfe. I'm itching to have a newer version
available in Debian, especially now that you split the not needed parts
from the main program.
Thanks, Rogério Brito.
--
Rogério Brito : rbr...@{mackenzie,ime.usp}.br : GPG key 1024D/7C2CAEB8
http://www.ime.usp.br/~rbrito : http://meusite.mackenzie.com.br/rbrito
Projects: algorithms.berlios.de : lame.sf.net : vrms.alioth.debian.org
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-mentors-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Re: RFS: xfe (updated package - new upstream release)
Hello Rogério, Am Wed, 18 Nov 2009 12:56:08 -0200 schrieb Rogério Brito rbr...@ime.usp.br: oh oh, so a long list! * the debian/README file talks about installation of some programs; this is useless if you are installing a precompiled package, because you, the maintainer, will have taken care of the dependencies. I still have not understand the difference between README and README.Debian. Perhaps that's the problem. So I will delete the part about installation thinks. * why not wrap the (build-)dependencies to leave one for each line, easing the manipulation and readability? That's a good idea. I will do it. * you mention on debian/copyright that you packaged the program, but the changelog says that some other people worked on that. Can you clarify? With the background that the old package with version 1.04 was very old and for the new standard 3.8.3 plus cdbs and other thinks I have to create the hole debian directory new (with dh_make). Or should I ever let the first line in debian/copyright as it was in the old package? * you can remove comments from the watch file. Some lines came from the template. * why do you prefix some commands in debian/rules with a minus sign? Do you want to ignore their error conditions? What about using something This '-' should only help, if the compilation/packaging was interrupted and in the next run at this points it would stop because the final situation was not reached. On the other hand I see the error message and can decide, whether it is a real error. * some comments on debian/rules could be removed, couldn't they? Yes, that's right. But at the beginning of packaging they are very helpful. * in patch 01_no-mount-warning.patch, only linux is checked. What about the kFreeBSD's? Any bug with them is now considered release critical. Please, see if my comments apply or if they can be ignored. How should I understand this? In Xfe the mount warning is useful for NFS and other shared media, if they are no more exist. That could be activated from the user by local configuration. * why do you have two patches to xferc? The patches have no comments on them (See DEP-3). I should use better names for patches. The first patch changes the binary names, the second patch only changes extern program names. * patch 05_names-in-xfedefs.patch replaces xmms with audacious. I think that that should be audacious2. It was new for me, that the binary now have another name. Thanks! * why does it get compiled with -O3? Why not -O2? Why not -Os (especially useful for machines without a lot of cache). I think this should be checked together with upstream - that's right? * can't you compile the C++ code with -Wextra and -Weffc++? This way, more warnings could be emitted and some potential bug that is lurking there would just be discovered soon. I can do it for testing. But I think this is the job for the upstream developer, isn't it? Anyway, thank you very much for xfe. I'm itching to have a newer version available in Debian, especially now that you split the not needed parts from the main program. Thanks - but still I wait for an sponsor! Fondest regards, Joachim Wiedorn signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Re: RFS: xfe (updated package - new upstream release)
2009/11/18 Rogério Brito rbr...@ime.usp.br: * in patch 01_no-mount-warning.patch, only linux is checked. What about the kFreeBSD's? Any bug with them is now considered release critical. Please, see if my comments apply or if they can be ignored. A clarification to this: FTBFS bugs are only severity important, unless they are a regression in buildability on that arch. If the package builds but produces a broken package with binaries that do not work, then that is an RC bug. -- bye, pabs http://wiki.debian.org/PaulWise -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-mentors-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Re: RFS: xfe (updated package - new upstream release)
Hi, Joachim.
On Nov 18 2009, Joachim Wiedorn wrote:
Am Wed, 18 Nov 2009 12:56:08 -0200 schrieb
Rogério Brito rbr...@ime.usp.br:
oh oh, so a long list!
Well, I thought that you wanted some comments. :-)
I still have not understand the difference between README and
README.Debian. Perhaps that's the problem. So I will delete the part
about installation thinks.
README should contain generic comments about the package itself.
README.Debian should contain comments about the package in Debian, like
some divergence in behaviour against upstream that users should violate
the principle of least surprise.
Other things that are pertinent in README.Debian: design decisions that
are taken in Debian, like reserving a given runlevel or allocating a
namespace of something for use in the distribution (say, all config
files with prefix 00 to 40 are meant to be used for tweaking something
in the kernel etc).
With the background that the old package with version 1.04 was very
old and for the new standard 3.8.3 plus cdbs and other thinks I have
to create the hole debian directory new (with dh_make). Or should I
ever let the first line in debian/copyright as it was in the old
package?
You should still give a hint (a short phrase is enough) that other
people worked on the package and give them credit.
Talking about cdbs, it may obfuscate some details that you need to know
once you have to hunt some bug on your package and, while it
encapsulates many things, it may change its behaviour in subtle ways.
It is, after all, a second layer of indirection regarding the original
configuration, compilation, and installation (the first being debhelper,
used by cdbs).
* you can remove comments from the watch file.
Some lines came from the template.
Just kill them. The templates serve as examples for people to know what
values to put in the appropriate fields.
This '-' should only help, if the compilation/packaging was interrupted
and in the next run at this points it would stop because the final
situation was not reached.
An error generated during the package building at a given stage should
not generate the target of the makefile.
It is, in some cases, better to abort things if you encounter an error,
but you, the package maintainer, should decide what is better.
(I, myself, usually turn on every sensible warning, break at many
potential errors and warnings etc, just to be on the safe side).
On the other hand I see the error message and can decide, whether it
is a real error.
Nice.
How should I understand this? In Xfe the mount warning is useful for
NFS and other shared media, if they are no more exist. That could be
activated from the user by local configuration.
Well, I will have to check it to see what happens.
* why do you have two patches to xferc? The patches have no comments on
them (See DEP-3).
I should use better names for patches.
Right. If you find some time, just put a description there so that
people that will possibly make a non-maintainer upload understand why
the patch is there.
* why does it get compiled with -O3? Why not -O2? Why not -Os
(especially useful for machines without a lot of cache).
I think this should be checked together with upstream - that's right?
No, this one should be fixed. Getting rid of the unconditional -O3, the
-ffast-math, -fomit-frame-pointer and so on should be done as a way to
control how the builds happen.
1 - Somebody may want to use the (Debian-policy described) variable
DEB_BUILD_OPTIONS=noopt to disable optimization (to hunt some potential
bug), but, as you package is right now, it always compiles with
optimizations turned on.
2 - The optimization level -O3 may be broken on some architectures (and
it was, if memory serves).
3 - Some other options are broken in other architectures (like, say, the
math-handling functions in ARM).
These options get set in configure and configure.in. You can change
those and convince upstream to flexibilize things a little bit.
All this is preventing you some quite possible headaches once your
package gets to the users systems.
* can't you compile the C++ code with -Wextra and -Weffc++? This way,
more warnings could be emitted and some potential bug that is lurking
there would just be discovered soon.
I can do it for testing. But I think this is the job for the upstream
developer, isn't it?
Yes, it is. But it already reveals some code improvements.
Oh, as a last point, just give a look at the output of lintian. It's
telling some things that are ultra-easy to fix.
That's it. I hope that your package gets into Debian ASAP. I'm using a
copy of it already.
Regards,
--
Rogério Brito : rbr...@{mackenzie,ime.usp}.br : GPG key 1024D/7C2CAEB8
http://www.ime.usp.br/~rbrito : http://meusite.mackenzie.com.br/rbrito
Projects: algorithms.berlios.de : lame.sf.net : vrms.alioth.debian.org
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-mentors-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a
Re: RFS: xfe (updated package - new upstream release)
Hello, Ok, I have to include intltool in the build dependencies. Please can you say me the other minor things, so I can check them, too. The updated version with some minor changes is now on mentors.debian.net. Now I think it is ready for uploading. Fondest regards, Joachim Wiedorn signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Re: RFS: xfe (updated package - new upstream release)
Dear mentors, Hi, I'm not using xfe, but here is my comment: the privios maintainer of xfe had set the package to RFA. Because the version is very old and with some bugs, there is a new upstream version available with bugfixes and new features. I would like to take over maintainance. So I am looking for a sponsor for the new version 1.32.1-1 of my package xfe. It builds these binary packages: xfe- A lightweight file manager for X11 xfe-i18n - A lightweight file manager for X11 (i18n support) xfe-themes - A lightweight file manager for X11 (themes) The package appears to be lintian clean. It is packed in Source formate 3.0 (quilt). The upload would fix these bugs: 529693 A message sent to #529855 (Fwd: New Xfe version 1.18 and fixed bugs) says that some more bugs have been eventually fixed with that new upstream release, but I don't see them closed with your debian/changelog; these should be checked before closed of course. Bug housekeeping is important for both users (to find their way) and developers (to avoid duplication of work). -- pub 4096R/0E4BD0AB people.fccf.net/danchev/key pgp.mit.edu -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-mentors-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Re: RFS: xfe (updated package - new upstream release)
Hello George, Am Sun, 15 Nov 2009 10:18:55 +0200 schrieb George Danchev danc...@spnet.net: A message sent to #529855 (Fwd: New Xfe version 1.18 and fixed bugs) says that some more bugs have been eventually fixed with that new upstream release, but I don't see them closed with your debian/changelog; these should be checked before closed of course. Bug housekeeping is important for both users (to find their way) and developers (to avoid duplication of work). Now I have looked over all bug reports and I have seen the most of them are fixed. I have added Closes to the comments in my changelog file. The updated version is now on mentors.debian.net. Thanks! Ciao, Joo -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-mentors-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Re: RFS: xfe (updated package - new upstream release)
Hi, Joachim.
On Nov 15 2009, Joo Martin wrote:
Now I have looked over all bug reports and I have seen the most of them
are fixed. I have added Closes to the comments in my changelog file.
Thanks for taking care of xfe. I especially like the fact that it is
split to make it leaner.
The updated version is now on mentors.debian.net.
The package seems to be missing a build-dep on intltool. There are some
other minor things, but I can comment on them latter, with other
releases (if I don't forget).
Hope this helps,
--
Rogério Brito : rbr...@{mackenzie,ime.usp}.br : GPG key 1024D/7C2CAEB8
http://www.ime.usp.br/~rbrito : http://meusite.mackenzie.com.br/rbrito
Projects: algorithms.berlios.de : lame.sf.net : vrms.alioth.debian.org
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-mentors-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Re: RFS: xfe (updated package - new upstream release)
Hello Rogério, Am Sun, 15 Nov 2009 11:21:31 -0200 schrieb Rogério Brito rbr...@ime.usp.br: The package seems to be missing a build-dep on intltool. There are some other minor things, but I can comment on them latter, with other releases (if I don't forget). Ok, I have to include intltool in the build dependencies. Please can you say me the other minor things, so I can check them, too. Thanks for feedback! Fondest regards, Joachim Wiedorn signature.asc Description: PGP signature
RFS: xfe (updated package - new upstream release)
Dear mentors, the privios maintainer of xfe had set the package to RFA. Because the version is very old and with some bugs, there is a new upstream version available with bugfixes and new features. I would like to take over maintainance. So I am looking for a sponsor for the new version 1.32.1-1 of my package xfe. It builds these binary packages: xfe- A lightweight file manager for X11 xfe-i18n - A lightweight file manager for X11 (i18n support) xfe-themes - A lightweight file manager for X11 (themes) The package appears to be lintian clean. It is packed in Source formate 3.0 (quilt). The upload would fix these bugs: 529693 The package can be found on mentors.debian.net: - URL: http://mentors.debian.net/debian/pool/main/x/xfe - Source repository: deb-src http://mentors.debian.net/debian unstable main - dget http://mentors.debian.net/debian/pool/main/x/xfe/xfe_1.32.1-1.dsc I would be glad if someone uploaded this package for me. Kind regards Joachim Wiedorn -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-mentors-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
