Re: Bugzilla package in need of help
On Wed, Oct 20, 2004 at 09:55:19PM +0200, Moritz Muehlenhoff wrote: > In gmane.linux.debian.devel.mentors, you wrote: > > - I did not verify that the new .orig.tar.gz is indeed genuine > > md5sums are identical with upstream's tarball, I just double checked. > > > - the following duplicates the call to fix_www_data_perm for > > /var/cache/bugzilla, and in addition, this change should be mentioned in > > the > > changelog referring to a bugreport (I now cannot check the validitiy of > > this > > change since I don't see why this is changed) > > I'm afraid I forgot why this was added (it's been roughly three months). > Judging from the code it looks like some left over test code and can be > removed. > > Cheers, > Moritz I'm looking into the package now. Stay tuned. -- Francesco P. Lovergine
Re: Bugzilla package in need of help
On Wed, Oct 20, 2004 at 09:55:19PM +0200, Moritz Muehlenhoff wrote: > In gmane.linux.debian.devel.mentors, you wrote: > > - I did not verify that the new .orig.tar.gz is indeed genuine > > md5sums are identical with upstream's tarball, I just double checked. > > > - the following duplicates the call to fix_www_data_perm for > > /var/cache/bugzilla, and in addition, this change should be mentioned in the > > changelog referring to a bugreport (I now cannot check the validitiy of this > > change since I don't see why this is changed) > > I'm afraid I forgot why this was added (it's been roughly three months). > Judging from the code it looks like some left over test code and can be > removed. > > Cheers, > Moritz I'm looking into the package now. Stay tuned. -- Francesco P. Lovergine -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Bugzilla package in need of help
In gmane.linux.debian.devel.mentors, you wrote: > - I did not verify that the new .orig.tar.gz is indeed genuine md5sums are identical with upstream's tarball, I just double checked. > - the following duplicates the call to fix_www_data_perm for > /var/cache/bugzilla, and in addition, this change should be mentioned in the > changelog referring to a bugreport (I now cannot check the validitiy of this > change since I don't see why this is changed) I'm afraid I forgot why this was added (it's been roughly three months). Judging from the code it looks like some left over test code and can be removed. Cheers, Moritz
Re: Bugzilla package in need of help
In gmane.linux.debian.devel.mentors, you wrote: > - I did not verify that the new .orig.tar.gz is indeed genuine md5sums are identical with upstream's tarball, I just double checked. > - the following duplicates the call to fix_www_data_perm for > /var/cache/bugzilla, and in addition, this change should be mentioned in the > changelog referring to a bugreport (I now cannot check the validitiy of this > change since I don't see why this is changed) I'm afraid I forgot why this was added (it's been roughly three months). Judging from the code it looks like some left over test code and can be removed. Cheers, Moritz -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Bugzilla package in need of help
On Wed, Oct 20, 2004 at 09:05:45AM +0200, Moritz Muehlenhoff wrote:
> In linux.debian.devel, you wrote:
> > It came to my attention that the 'bugzilla' Debian package is currently
> > not in Sarge, due to several RC bugs.
> >
> > If you consider this package worthy of inclusion in Sarge (note that is
> > is in woody, so not shipping it in Sarge would be a regression, and
> > leaving users of the Debian bugzilla package in the cold), please lend a
> > hand. More than 1% of the popcon users actively use bugzilla at the
> > moment.
>
> I once made a package of 2.16.6 for internal use that fixes four of the
> five release-critical bugs (26077{2,3,4}, 250638). 253841 isn't "serious"
> IMO; it's not as convenient as it could be, but if 1% of all popcon users
> use it actively it cannot be _that_ seriously broken. Bugzilla is a
> complex package after all.
> The 2.16.6 packages can be grabbed from http://www.tzi.de/~jmm/debian/
Thank you for your work.
Since Moritz isn't a DD, anyone willing to NMU based on his work?
I checked the interdiff, and
- I did not verify that the new .orig.tar.gz is indeed genuine
- it should use NMU-type version numbering, and mention it's an NMU
- the new copyright file should be fixed to do have a newline at the end,
otherwise it looks okay
- the following duplicates the call to fix_www_data_perm for
/var/cache/bugzilla, and in addition, this change should be mentioned in the
changelog referring to a bugreport (I now cannot check the validitiy of this
change since I don't see why this is changed)
--- bugzilla-2.16.5/debian/bugzilla.postinst
+++ bugzilla-2.16.6/debian/bugzilla.postinst
@@ -68,7 +68,9 @@
fix_www_data_perm('/var/lib/bugzilla'); #this should be done by checksetup.pl
fix_www_data_perm('/var/cache/bugzilla'); #but I dislike the way this is done.
-
+fix_www_data_perm('/var/cache/bugzilla'); #but I dislike the way this is done.
+system(qq{chmod -R a+x /usr/lib/cgi-bin/bugzilla}) == 0
+ or die "Can't fix owner of CGI-BINs";
exit 0;
Otherwise, it looks okay to me, though I didn't test the package at all.
--Jeroen
--
Jeroen van Wolffelaar
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (also for Jabber & MSN; ICQ: 33944357)
http://Jeroen.A-Eskwadraat.nl
Re: Bugzilla package in need of help
On Wed, Oct 20, 2004 at 09:05:45AM +0200, Moritz Muehlenhoff wrote:
> In linux.debian.devel, you wrote:
> > It came to my attention that the 'bugzilla' Debian package is currently
> > not in Sarge, due to several RC bugs.
> >
> > If you consider this package worthy of inclusion in Sarge (note that is
> > is in woody, so not shipping it in Sarge would be a regression, and
> > leaving users of the Debian bugzilla package in the cold), please lend a
> > hand. More than 1% of the popcon users actively use bugzilla at the
> > moment.
>
> I once made a package of 2.16.6 for internal use that fixes four of the
> five release-critical bugs (26077{2,3,4}, 250638). 253841 isn't "serious"
> IMO; it's not as convenient as it could be, but if 1% of all popcon users
> use it actively it cannot be _that_ seriously broken. Bugzilla is a
> complex package after all.
> The 2.16.6 packages can be grabbed from http://www.tzi.de/~jmm/debian/
Thank you for your work.
Since Moritz isn't a DD, anyone willing to NMU based on his work?
I checked the interdiff, and
- I did not verify that the new .orig.tar.gz is indeed genuine
- it should use NMU-type version numbering, and mention it's an NMU
- the new copyright file should be fixed to do have a newline at the end,
otherwise it looks okay
- the following duplicates the call to fix_www_data_perm for
/var/cache/bugzilla, and in addition, this change should be mentioned in the
changelog referring to a bugreport (I now cannot check the validitiy of this
change since I don't see why this is changed)
--- bugzilla-2.16.5/debian/bugzilla.postinst
+++ bugzilla-2.16.6/debian/bugzilla.postinst
@@ -68,7 +68,9 @@
fix_www_data_perm('/var/lib/bugzilla'); #this should be done by checksetup.pl
fix_www_data_perm('/var/cache/bugzilla'); #but I dislike the way this is done.
-
+fix_www_data_perm('/var/cache/bugzilla'); #but I dislike the way this is done.
+system(qq{chmod -R a+x /usr/lib/cgi-bin/bugzilla}) == 0
+ or die "Can't fix owner of CGI-BINs";
exit 0;
Otherwise, it looks okay to me, though I didn't test the package at all.
--Jeroen
--
Jeroen van Wolffelaar
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (also for Jabber & MSN; ICQ: 33944357)
http://Jeroen.A-Eskwadraat.nl
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
