Re: gettext, autopoint and cvs

2010-05-19 Thread Adam D. Barratt 
On Tue, 2010-05-18 at 17:26 +0200, Santiago Vila wrote:
> BTW: I'm curious: Does britney understand the "block" tag?

britney doesn't know anything about bug tags.  The BTS exports two lists
of (source package, list of RC bugs) for testing and unstable, which
britney uses to determine whether any new bugs would be introduced by
migrating a package, but that's the only bug-related knowledge that
britney has.

Regards,

Adam


--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-release-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Archive: 
http://lists.debian.org/1274300629.21123.209.ca...@kaa.jungle.aubergine.my-net-space.net

Re: gettext, autopoint and cvs

2010-05-18 Thread Santiago Vila 
On Tue, 18 May 2010, Sven Joachim wrote:

> > This means if we were to release squeeze as stable today, everything
> > would work. I think this allows us to not consider the bugs as RC.
> 
> This seems wrong to me.  The packages will FTBFS in unstable now, right?

Yes.

> If so, IMO the bugs should be raised to serious and tagged "sid".
>
> > However, gettext 0.18 will not enter testing until the remaining bugs
> > are fixed.
> 
> You want to block #581637 by these bugs.

Ok, will do that. Later today.


BTW: I'm curious: Does britney understand the "block" tag?


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-release-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Archive: 
http://lists.debian.org/alpine.deb.1.10.1005181722470.12...@kolmogorov.unex.es

Re: gettext, autopoint and cvs

2010-05-18 Thread Sven Joachim 
On 2010-05-18 15:52 +0200, Santiago Vila wrote:

> Sorry, I missed your mail (I don't read -release very often, please feel free
> to Cc me). I am reading it after uploading gettext 0.18-1 today.
>
> This is from the changelog:
>
>* Changed autopoint so that it uses git instead of cvs. As the autopoint
>  package was created to avoid gettext to depend on cvs, we are not going
>  to make gettext to depend on git now. Moreover, as packages using
>  autopoint and still having cvs in their build-depends would not work
>  anymore even if autopoint is still kept in the gettext package, this
>  effectively puts an end to the transition period: packages using
>  autopoint must build-depend on autopoint now.
>
> However, as I was asking for permission to make those bugs RC, and I
> believed there was no reply, I've made a random bug against gettext
> (#581637 seemed appropriate) to be of serious severity to prevent it
> from entering testing.
>
> This means if we were to release squeeze as stable today, everything
> would work. I think this allows us to not consider the bugs as RC.

This seems wrong to me.  The packages will FTBFS in unstable now, right?
If so, IMO the bugs should be raised to serious and tagged "sid".

> However, gettext 0.18 will not enter testing until the remaining bugs
> are fixed.

You want to block #581637 by these bugs.

Cheers,
   Sven


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-release-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Archive: http://lists.debian.org/87ljbhxmzk@turtle.gmx.de

Re: gettext, autopoint and cvs

2010-05-18 Thread Santiago Vila 
On Sat, 15 May 2010, Adam D. Barratt wrote:

> On Mon, 2010-05-10 at 12:44 +0200, Santiago Vila wrote:
> > Today a new upstream version of gettext has been released, and I would
> > like to move the autopoint functionality to the autopoint package as
> > planned.
> > 
> > Do I have the permission from the release managers to do this and
> > raise the severity of those bugs to "serious"?
> 
> They're not RC.  However...
> 
> > The bugs are trivial to fix, there has been enough time to fix them, and
> > I think it's about time to perform the next step.
> 
> ... I agree with this.  If you would be willing to be responsible for
> it, I'd be happy to make fixing the gettext/cvs situation a release
> goal; that would also make the remaining bugs NMU targets.

Hi.

Sorry, I missed your mail (I don't read -release very often, please feel free
to Cc me). I am reading it after uploading gettext 0.18-1 today.

This is from the changelog:

   * Changed autopoint so that it uses git instead of cvs. As the autopoint
 package was created to avoid gettext to depend on cvs, we are not going
 to make gettext to depend on git now. Moreover, as packages using
 autopoint and still having cvs in their build-depends would not work
 anymore even if autopoint is still kept in the gettext package, this
 effectively puts an end to the transition period: packages using
 autopoint must build-depend on autopoint now.

However, as I was asking for permission to make those bugs RC, and I
believed there was no reply, I've made a random bug against gettext
(#581637 seemed appropriate) to be of serious severity to prevent it
from entering testing.

This means if we were to release squeeze as stable today, everything
would work. I think this allows us to not consider the bugs as RC.

However, gettext 0.18 will not enter testing until the remaining bugs
are fixed.


So, to answer your mail: Yes, I feel responsible for this, and I will
care about NMUs if required, but I'm not in the mood of making NMUs yet.

For now, I'm going to ping the affected maintainers via the BTS.

Thanks.


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-release-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Archive: 
http://lists.debian.org/alpine.deb.1.10.1005181512100.10...@kolmogorov.unex.es

Re: gettext, autopoint and cvs

2010-05-15 Thread Adam D. Barratt 
Hi,

Apologies for not getting back to you sooner.

On Mon, 2010-05-10 at 12:44 +0200, Santiago Vila wrote:
> http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/pkgreport.cgi?users=gett...@packages.debian.org
> 
> Today a new upstream version of gettext has been released, and I would
> like to move the autopoint functionality to the autopoint package as
> planned.
> 
> Do I have the permission from the release managers to do this and
> raise the severity of those bugs to "serious"?

They're not RC.  However...

> The bugs are trivial to fix, there has been enough time to fix them, and
> I think it's about time to perform the next step.

... I agree with this.  If you would be willing to be responsible for
it, I'd be happy to make fixing the gettext/cvs situation a release
goal; that would also make the remaining bugs NMU targets.

Regards,

Adam


--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-release-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Archive: 
http://lists.debian.org/1273948682.20584.21531.ca...@kaa.jungle.aubergine.my-net-space.net

gettext, autopoint and cvs

2010-05-10 Thread Santiago Vila 
Hello.

I asked maintainers of packages using autopoint in its build system to
add autopoint to build-depends. Two months later, there are still ten packages
affected:

http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/pkgreport.cgi?users=gett...@packages.debian.org

Today a new upstream version of gettext has been released, and I would
like to move the autopoint functionality to the autopoint package as
planned.

Do I have the permission from the release managers to do this and
raise the severity of those bugs to "serious"?

The bugs are trivial to fix, there has been enough time to fix them, and
I think it's about time to perform the next step.

Thanks.


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-release-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Archive: 
http://lists.debian.org/alpine.deb.1.10.1005101226450.12...@cantor.unex.es

Re: gettext, autopoint and cvs

2010-02-28 Thread Marc 'HE' Brockschmidt 
Santiago Vila  writes:
> I've decided to implement "Plan B" anyway: create autopoint as an
> empty package which depends on gettext and cvs, as doing so will not
> break packages currently having cvs in their build-depends. Then will
> submit normal bugs asking to change their build-depends.

Thanks, this will make this easier for the release team. You may file
them as important, though. You may want to use user-tags to mark these
bugs, for easier tracking of the transition.

> Depending on how fast those bugs are fixed, we can decide about making
> this transition a release goal or not.

Yes, I guess so.

Marc
-- 
Fachbegriffe der Informatik - Einfach erklärt
32: Vaporware
   Dampf, den man der Konkurrenz macht. (nach Peter Berlich)


pgpHuCt58BqXi.pgp
Description: PGP signature

Re: gettext, autopoint and cvs

2010-02-26 Thread Santiago Vila 
On Fri, 26 Feb 2010, Cyril Brulebois wrote:

> (Not sure you're subscribed, apologies if that's the case.)

I am, but do not read it daily so Ccs are welcome.

> Santiago Vila  (26/02/2010):
> > Could someone please calculate how many packages currently
> > build-depend on cvs in unstable? (That would be an upper estimation
> > of how many packages would I break in unstable by doing this).
> 
> 67 by my count. I used that:
> | $ grep-dctrl -s Package -F Build-Depends,Build-Depends-Indep cvs 
> /var/lib/apt/lists/*sid*Sources | awk '{print $2}' | sort -u

Thank you.

I've decided to implement "Plan B" anyway: create autopoint as an
empty package which depends on gettext and cvs, as doing so will not
break packages currently having cvs in their build-depends. Then will
submit normal bugs asking to change their build-depends.

Depending on how fast those bugs are fixed, we can decide about making
this transition a release goal or not.


Paul Wise  writes:
> I'd (not a release team member) really like autopoint upstream to move
> to a more sane design than depending on CVS and embedding a full CVS
> repository in a tarball in the package.

That's not really the issue I was asking about. I do not decide about
how autopoint is implemented. In fact, I'm not an autopoint user myself.
You might want to contact upstream for that.


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-release-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Archive: 
http://lists.debian.org/alpine.deb.1.10.1002261324460.3...@kolmogorov.unex.es

Re: gettext, autopoint and cvs

2010-02-25 Thread Paul Wise 
(also unsure if you're subscribed)

I'd (not a release team member) really like autopoint upstream to move
to a more sane design than depending on CVS and embedding a full CVS
repository in a tarball in the package.

I see two possibilities:

Drop the need to store the whole history. This is my preferred option
since I've been bitten before by autopoint not using the latest
version of gettext.m4 and instead using a version that was broken on
64-bit machines (#451921). I can't think of any possible reason to
store the whole history, do you know why it is needed?

Store each version of the files in a new directory in the tarball.

-- 
bye,
pabs

http://wiki.debian.org/PaulWise


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-release-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Archive: 
http://lists.debian.org/e13a36b31002251823xe8bae26xa45bc7975a421...@mail.gmail.com

Re: gettext, autopoint and cvs

2010-02-25 Thread Cyril Brulebois 
(Not sure you're subscribed, apologies if that's the case.)

Santiago Vila  (26/02/2010):
> Could someone please calculate how many packages currently
> build-depend on cvs in unstable? (That would be an upper estimation
> of how many packages would I break in unstable by doing this).

67 by my count. I used that:
| $ grep-dctrl -s Package -F Build-Depends,Build-Depends-Indep cvs 
/var/lib/apt/lists/*sid*Sources | awk '{print $2}' | sort -u
| aegis
| angband
| audit
| autoconf2.13
| biojava-live
| ceferino
| cryptsetup
| cvs2svn
| e16
| eglibc
| eiciel
| enscript
| eterm
| exult
| firebird2.5
| flex
| fvwm
| gcc-4.1
| gdc-4.1
| ggobi
| git-core
| gltron
| gnusound
| gpc-4.1
| gregorio
| gtklp
| hurd
| ibus-array
| imlib2
| insighttoolkit
| kbuild
| libcvs-perl
| libfontenc
| libfs
| libgnomeprint
| libsdl-sound1.2
| libsm
| libxcursor
| make-dfsg
| make-doc-non-dfsg
| maven-scm
| miredo
| moc
| navit
| oprofile
| pager
| poker-network
| pygame
| qutecom
| rancid
| readahead-fedora
| rezound
| scim-unikey
| sdcv
| sdl-mixer1.2
| setools
| sox
| statsvn
| supertux
| vlc
| wm-icons
| wxwidgets2.8
| xine-lib
| xpp
| xulrunner
| xz-utils
| zlib

Mraw,
KiBi.


signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

gettext, autopoint and cvs

2010-02-25 Thread Santiago Vila 
Hello.

I'm considering to move autopoint, from gettext, to a separate package
called "autopoint". By popular demand, but also because it is the
"right thing" to do if gettext is not going to depend on cvs.

(Moreover it would be a nice "Architecture: all" package which would
remove about 385K of stuff from gettext).

Could someone please calculate how many packages currently build-depend
on cvs in unstable? (That would be an upper estimation of how many
packages would I break in unstable by doing this).

Plan A is to do the move and fix all the required packages in
unstable, if the release managers do not object. For each affected package,
the fix would be quite easy: Whenever packages has cvs in build-depends
because they use autopoint, they should use autopoint instead.

Plan B would be to create autopoint as an empty package which depends
on gettext and cvs. Then we encourage packages to build-depend on autopoint,
but without making it a release goal. Then we switch to Plan A when
the number of affected packages is small enough.

My personal preference would be to follow Plan A and do all the changes
before the release of squeeze.

Thanks.


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-release-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Archive: http://lists.debian.org/pine.lnx.4.64.1002260211170.7...@cantor.unex.es