Outdated version of Zoph in Debian
Hi, I am the maintainer of Zoph, a webbased program to organize photos. This program has been part of Debian for a long time, but it has not been updated for a while. I have contacted the Debian maintainer, Edelhard Becker, about this several times, but to no avail. The current version in Debian has several issues, including a few security-related of which some are severe. All of these are fixed in the latest release, 0.9 which will be released today. Because Edelhard seems to be unwilling and/or unable to fix this, I am requesting you to either find a new maintainer or remove it from the package database. Thank you, Jeroen Roos -- Zoph Organizes PHotos http://www.zoph.org -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-project-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/4fe5b392.8000...@zoph.org
Re: RFC - Changing current policy of debian.net entries
On Sat, Jun 23, 2012 at 12:50:00AM +0200, Holger Levsen wrote: eg love.debian.net was great (why is it down?). and so are/were others, please If only the username was encoded in that host we'd all know who to ask... ;) Simon. -- * A l'attaque par Junon Aoh! Choquant. Ce ne sont pas des * | gentils hommes -- Astérix chez les Bretons. | * * Brought to you by the letter C and the number 25 -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-project-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/20120623153124.gf6...@paranoidfreak.co.uk
Re: RFC - Changing current policy of debian.net entries
Hi, On Sat Jun 23, 2012 at 16:31:24 +0100, Simon Huggins wrote: On Sat, Jun 23, 2012 at 12:50:00AM +0200, Holger Levsen wrote: eg love.debian.net was great (why is it down?). and so are/were others, please If only the username was encoded in that host we'd all know who to ask... ;) dig +short -ttxt love.debian.net -- Martin Zobel-Helas zo...@debian.org | Debian System Administrator Debian GNU/Linux Developer | Debian Listmaster GPG key http://go.debian.net/B11B627B | GPG Fingerprint: 6B18 5642 8E41 EC89 3D5D BDBB 53B1 AC6D B11B 627B -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-project-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/20120623155024.gr20...@ftbfs.de
Re: Outdated version of Zoph in Debian
submitter 678644 jer...@zoph.org thanks On Sat, 23 Jun 2012, Jeroen Roos wrote: I am the maintainer of Zoph, a webbased program to organize photos. ... The current version in Debian has several issues, including a few security-related of which some are severe. All of these are fixed in the latest release, 0.9 which will be released today. Because Edelhard seems to be unwilling and/or unable to fix this, I am requesting you to either find a new maintainer or remove it from the package database. Severity grave bug opened against package zoph, security tag added, requesting either some packaging action or removal from the archive. Popcon says that the outdated Debian package doesn't have many users: http://qa.debian.org/popcon.php?package=zoph If the current maintainer (or a new maintainer) doesn't show up very soon with an upload of the new upstream version, it is probably best to remove it from Debian, as apparently the users have already given up on the Debian-packaged zoph and are probably using upstream packages directly. Jeroen, I am sure our security team would appreciate if you could post the relevant security fixes in your new upstream version to this bug report, as we will have to do something about the Zoph package in Debian stable, regardless of the fate of this package for the next stable release. Upstream release history (from sourceforge): STABLE: 0.8.0.5 2010-10-20 1,537 downloads 0.8.0.4 2010-07-15 0.8.0.3 2010-07-01 0.8.0.2 2009-11-01 527 downloads 0.8.0.1 2009-09-23 DEVEL: 0.9pre2 2012-02-20 118 downloads 0.9pre1 2011-11-26 51 downloads 0.8.4 2011-09-09 147 downloads 0.8.3 2011-04-03 129 downloads 0.8.2.1 2010-11-20 0.8.2 2010-10-20 81 downloads 0.8.1.2 2010-07-15 124 downloads 0.8.1.1 2010-07-01 0.8.1 2010-01-03 -- One disk to rule them all, One disk to find them. One disk to bring them all and in the darkness grind them. In the Land of Redmond where the shadows lie. -- The Silicon Valley Tarot Henrique Holschuh -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-project-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/20120623160517.ga9...@khazad-dum.debian.net
Re: RFC - Changing current policy of debian.net entries
Hi, I think you are combining two different issues: debian.net namespace and how new projects are developed/introduced. For the debian.net namespace I really don't care if for personal things (such as a personal website) are to be hosted under $entry.$uid.debian.net. I don't care mostly because I find that such uses are better disallowed. Nowadays one can find all sorts of things with a debian.net subdomain that I feel ashamed that it carries the debian.net name. As for the other part, i.e. project services, I really think they should be on the 3rd level: $service.debian.net. I also don't like them being called unofficial. If I, as a contributing member and DD, work on a project or service *for* Debian and it is called unofficial, I'm better off moving onto some other place where they actually welcome new developments. Call them in incubation if you want (and like I proposed on IRC.) That at least sounds like there is some sort of association and not some unknown foo bar thingy that somebody happens to have put under a debian.net subdomain. If you and others agree that there are two different topics that should be discussed and their respectiv policy drafted, then I would be happy to join the discussion. I'm all open for it. If, however, the whole thing is nevertheless seen as only one topic, then I must say I profoundly object to the proposal. Regards, -- Raphael Geissert - Debian Developer www.debian.org - get.debian.net -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-project-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/js4vb1$ct8$1...@dough.gmane.org
Re: RFC - Changing current policy of debian.net entries
On Sat, Jun 23, 2012 at 12:45:02PM -0500, Raphael Geissert wrote: I think you are combining two different issues: debian.net namespace and how new projects are developed/introduced. ... If you and others agree that there are two different topics that should be discussed and their respective policy drafted, then I would be happy to join the discussion. I'm all open for it. I agree with both Martin's original points and Raphael's clarifications regarding (1) separating the concerns relating to the debian.net zone versus introduction of new services, and (2) using the more welcoming phrase 'incubating' rather than 'unofficial'. To be fair to Martin, we discussed (very briefly) 'unofficial' vs 'incubating' and I suggested using unofficial. Like Martin, I'm keen on simultaneously encouraging developer engagement / ingenuity while avoiding debian.net / debian.org confusion (or embarrassment, as Raphael suggests, in some cases). -- Luca Filipozzi -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-project-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/20120623181626.ga18...@emyr.net
Re: RFC - Changing current policy of debian.net entries
Hi, On Sat Jun 23, 2012 at 12:45:02 -0500, Raphael Geissert wrote: Hi, I think you are combining two different issues: debian.net namespace and how new projects are developed/introduced. For the debian.net namespace I really don't care if for personal things (such as a personal website) are to be hosted under $entry.$uid.debian.net. I don't care mostly because I find that such uses are better disallowed. Nowadays one can find all sorts of things with a debian.net subdomain that I feel ashamed that it carries the debian.net name. I have spoken to quite a lot of lay users, none of them knew the difference between debian.net and debian.org. So, yes, maybe we should stop using the debian.net subdomain for things like this. As for the other part, i.e. project services, I really think they should be on the 3rd level: $service.debian.net. I have a problem here. Giving my above sentence, why should we use the debian.net subdomain here? Please give me a definition of project services. When do you call it a project service? Given the fact that lay users do not understand the fact between debian.net and debian.org they will not understand that some of those services are official services, and some are services in development (or incubation). I also don't like them being called unofficial. If I, as a contributing member and DD, work on a project or service *for* Debian and it is called unofficial, I'm better off moving onto some other place where they actually welcome new developments. Call them in incubation if you want (and like I proposed on IRC.) That at least sounds like there is some sort of association and not some unknown foo bar thingy that somebody happens to have put under a debian.net subdomain. If you and others agree that there are two different topics that should be discussed and their respectiv policy drafted, then I would be happy to join the discussion. I'm all open for it. Maybe we can establish a process, wherein we define criteria that need to be met to be called a incubation project. I have not yet spoken with all DSA members, but i personaly would be happy to host them below a incubator.debian.org zone. This will also give the projects in incubation some guidelines to get moved to debian.org hardware at a later point. Please keep in mind, that if you want you project/service to be run under the debian.org zone, those services need to run on DSA administrated hardware. If, however, the whole thing is nevertheless seen as only one topic, then I must say I profoundly object to the proposal. I just want to get rid of the plain usage (3rd level) of the debian.net zone. This zone only confuses most of our users. Cheers, Martin -- Martin Zobel-Helas zo...@debian.org | Debian System Administrator Debian GNU/Linux Developer | Debian Listmaster GPG key http://go.debian.net/B11B627B | GPG Fingerprint: 6B18 5642 8E41 EC89 3D5D BDBB 53B1 AC6D B11B 627B -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-project-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/20120623202143.gs20...@ftbfs.de
Re: Outdated version of Zoph in Debian
Hi Henrique, Jeroen, On Sat, 2012-06-23 at 13:05 -0300, Henrique de Moraes Holschuh wrote: On Sat, 23 Jun 2012, Jeroen Roos wrote: I am the maintainer of Zoph, a webbased program to organize photos. ... The current version in Debian has several issues, including a few security-related of which some are severe. All of these are fixed in the latest release, 0.9 which will be released today. As I see, 0.9 is released then. Looking into the feature list, it would be a shame to let it fade away. Because Edelhard seems to be unwilling and/or unable to fix this, I am requesting you to either find a new maintainer or remove it from the package database. Although I'm not one of its users, but will package 0.9 after I slept a bit. I was looking for a similar program _on the desktop_. Couldn't find any, even if I know Shotwell. Popcon says that the outdated Debian package doesn't have many users: http://qa.debian.org/popcon.php?package=zoph Jeroen, can you share some insight? Users gave up on the outdated package, it's just not known, has some drawbacks? If the current maintainer (or a new maintainer) doesn't show up very soon with an upload of the new upstream version, it is probably best to remove it from Debian, as apparently the users have already given up on the Debian-packaged zoph and are probably using upstream packages directly. I'm asking for advice. To be honest, #556573 [1] needs some luck to be fixed for Wheezy. There's an usability bug, as one dependency of Zoph is not even packaged. As I see, the NEW queue is long, even if I package that, may not reach testing and then stable. Without that, the very first step, importing photos won't work. May the FTP Team be asked to review and hopefully accept that Perl package per priority? What are RMs say? Regards, Laszlo/GCS [1] http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=556573 -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-project-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/1340499547.11775.23.camel@julia
Re: RFC - Changing current policy of debian.net entries
Le Sat, Jun 23, 2012 at 10:21:44PM +0200, Martin Zobel-Helas a écrit : I just want to get rid of the plain usage (3rd level) of the debian.net zone. This zone only confuses most of our users. Hello Martin, Indeed, the meaning of the .org/.net dichotomy is not well advertised and it has already been discussed. One of the proposition was that .debian.net sites should contain an explanation or a pointer to an explanation. I think that it is a good idea and I will apply it to upstream-metadata.debian.net. Perhaps www.debian.net could contain this explanation in multiple languages, or redirect to a relevant page on www.debian.org, instead of redirecting to the home page of www.debian.org ? Have a nice day, -- Charles Plessy Tsurumi, Kanagawa, Japan -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-project-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/20120624014457.gb6...@falafel.plessy.net
