Re: gob2_2.0.16-3_amd64.changes ACCEPTED
On Tue, Apr 27, 2010 at 08:11:06PM -0500, Raphael Geissert wrote: From the changelog: * Orphan package. Right, but orphaned packages are _not_ set to this discussion ML. Thanks for your helpful response! Even running lintian on the package you uploaded points you to the right direction: ... If tools are written for the purpose of catching mistakes (and bugs) beforehand *please use them*. Thanks. I'm orphaning the package. What part of that makes you think I'm going to be interested in fixing random lintian warnings? -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-qa-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/20100428090627.ga7...@sirena.org.uk
Re: gob2_2.0.16-3_amd64.changes ACCEPTED
Mark Brown broo...@sirena.org.uk (28/04/2010): I'm orphaning the package. What part of that makes you think I'm going to be interested in fixing random lintian warnings? Random lintian warnings (and errors) like the ones you're generating by orphaning the package in an improper manner? If you're not used to that process, you probably should have even more reasons to use that tool and fix those things. Mraw, KiBi. signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: gob2_2.0.16-3_amd64.changes ACCEPTED
On Wed, Apr 28, 2010 at 12:01:22PM +0200, Cyril Brulebois wrote: Mark Brown broo...@sirena.org.uk (28/04/2010): I'm orphaning the package. What part of that makes you think I'm going to be interested in fixing random lintian warnings? Random lintian warnings (and errors) like the ones you're generating by orphaning the package in an improper manner? If you're not used to that process, you probably should have even more reasons to use that tool and fix those things. *sigh* Lintian just isn't the right tool for this job, the sort of random things that lintian identifies just aren't interesting for an upload like this. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-qa-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/20100428102919.ga10...@sirena.org.uk
Re: gob2_2.0.16-3_amd64.changes ACCEPTED
On Wed, Apr 28, 2010 at 11:29:20AM +0100, Mark Brown wrote: On Wed, Apr 28, 2010 at 12:01:22PM +0200, Cyril Brulebois wrote: Mark Brown broo...@sirena.org.uk (28/04/2010): I'm orphaning the package. What part of that makes you think I'm going to be interested in fixing random lintian warnings? Random lintian warnings (and errors) like the ones you're generating by orphaning the package in an improper manner? If you're not used to that process, you probably should have even more reasons to use that tool and fix those things. *sigh* Lintian just isn't the right tool for this job, the sort of random things that lintian identifies just aren't interesting for an upload like this. An upload like this isn't the right thing to do to orphan a package. Filing an O bug is enough. If you upload a package, it has to be technically sane -- independent of your particular interest in that package. And for that lintian tests are very well interesting. Hauke -- .''`. Jan Hauke Rahm j...@debian.org www.jhr-online.de : :' : Debian Developer www.debian.org `. `'` Member of the Linux Foundationwww.linux.com `- Fellow of the Free Software Foundation Europe www.fsfe.org signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: gob2_2.0.16-3_amd64.changes ACCEPTED
On Wed, Apr 28, 2010 at 03:10:34PM +0200, Jan Hauke Rahm wrote: On Wed, Apr 28, 2010 at 11:29:20AM +0100, Mark Brown wrote: *sigh* Lintian just isn't the right tool for this job, the sort of random things that lintian identifies just aren't interesting for an upload like this. An upload like this isn't the right thing to do to orphan a package. Filing an O bug is enough. If you upload a package, it has to be technically sane -- independent of your particular interest in that package. And for that lintian tests are very well interesting. Look, I'm not saying that there's no problem with the upload here. What I'm saying is that an e-mail such as that which was sent originally sent tended rather to the hostile and appears to have unrealistic expectation as to the sort of work that a maintainer is going to do when orphaning a package. The package was basically sane before this upload, if anything meaningful had changed lintian-wise there's very little chance that it'd get looked at in an upload that's all about indicating a lack of interest in the package so there's very little reason to run lintian on it. A simple mail saying Hey, you made a mistake would have been much more constructive. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-qa-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/20100428153325.ga25...@sirena.org.uk
Re: gob2_2.0.16-3_amd64.changes ACCEPTED
Mark Brown wrote: Look, I'm not saying that there's no problem with the upload here. What I'm saying is that an e-mail such as that which was sent originally sent tended rather to the hostile and appears to have unrealistic expectation as to the sort of work that a maintainer is going to do when orphaning a package. You are right. I could have written my email in a much better way. I apologise for that. Regards, -- Raphael Geissert - Debian Developer www.debian.org - get.debian.net -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-qa-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/4bd8ddc2.1ca6650a.7e63.1...@mx.google.com
Re: gob2_2.0.16-3_amd64.changes ACCEPTED
Hi Mark, Archive Administrator wrote: Accepted: gob2_2.0.16-3.debian.tar.gz to main/g/gob2/gob2_2.0.16-3.debian.tar.gz gob2_2.0.16-3.dsc to main/g/gob2/gob2_2.0.16-3.dsc gob2_2.0.16-3_amd64.deb to main/g/gob2/gob2_2.0.16-3_amd64.deb Override entries for your package: gob2_2.0.16-3.dsc - source devel gob2_2.0.16-3_amd64.deb - extra devel Announcing to debian-devel-chan...@lists.debian.org From the changelog: * Orphan package. Right, but orphaned packages are _not_ set to this discussion ML. A quick look at the devref or at any of the over 436 orphaned packages would have told you the correct address. Even running lintian on the package you uploaded points you to the right direction: $ lintian gob2_2.0.16-3.dsc W: gob2 source: _changelog-should-mention-nmu_ W: gob2 source: source-nmu-has-incorrect-version-number 2.0.16-3 W: gob2 source: debhelper-but-no-misc-depends gob2 W: gob2 source: package-uses-deprecated-debhelper-compat-version 4 E: gob2 source: *wrong-debian-qa-address-set-as-maintainer* Debian QA debian-qa@lists.debian.org W: gob2 source: _no-human-maintainers_ W: gob2 source: out-of-date-standards-version 3.8.2 (current is 3.8.4) $ lintian-info -t wrong-debian-qa-address-set-as-maintainer N: wrong-debian-qa-address-set-as-maintainer N: N: Orphaned packages should no longer have the address N: debian-qa@lists.debian.org in the Maintainer field. N: N: The correct Maintainer field for orphaned packages is Debian QA Group N: packa...@qa.debian.org. N: N: Refer to Debian Developer's Reference section 5.9.4 (Orphaning a N: package) for details. N: N: Severity: important, Certainty: certain N: If tools are written for the purpose of catching mistakes (and bugs) beforehand *please use them*. Thanks. Kind regards, -- Raphael Geissert - Debian Developer www.debian.org - get.debian.net -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-qa-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/4bd78b2c.1608c00a.4fc5.c...@mx.google.com
