Bug#160529: ASK is RFPed
retitle 160529 RFP: ask -- Active Spam Killer thanks Ok, It's been a week and got no response from Marco Paganigi. I won't package or even sponsor ASK in such a situation. I'm retitling this bug to RFP. -- Robert Millan "[..] but the delight and pride of Aule is in the deed of making, and in the thing made, and neither in possession nor in his own mastery; wherefore he gives and hoards not, and is free from care, passing ever on to some new work." -- J.R.R.T, Ainulindale (Silmarillion)
Bug#160529: ASK is RFPed
Hello Robert, Larry, First of all, my sincere apologies for taking so long to respond. I've been traveling frequently and for some reason, the original sender (Robert?) did not respond to the confirmation message. I believe your anti-spam system classified the confirmation as spam and you never saw it... Hmmm... Got to think of a way to prevent that... Yes, I am interested in your help with ASK+Debian. I packaged ASK myself but I'm not an "expert" in packaging .deb files, as you can see. :) Can you verify if indeed your anti-spam system classified the confirmation as spam? That seems to be the case. Also, I had a period of about a week when my domain didn't resolve, due to provider problems. :(((. Could have been that as well. > retitle 160529 RFP: ask -- Active Spam Killer > thanks > > Ok, It's been a week and got no response from Marco Paganigi. > > I won't package or even sponsor ASK in such a situation. I'm retitling this > bug to RFP. Hmmm... What's RFP? Again, sorry for all this confusion. Regards, Paga > > -- > Robert Millan > > "[..] but the delight and pride of Aule is in the deed of making, and in the > thing made, and neither in possession nor in his own mastery; wherefore he > gives and hoards not, and is free from care, passing ever on to some new > work." > > -- J.R.R.T, Ainulindale (Silmarillion) > -- Marco Paganini | UNIX / Linux / Networking [EMAIL PROTECTED] | PGP: http://www.paganini.net/pgp/ http://www.paganini.net | Magnus Frater te spectat...
Bug#160529: ASK is RFPed
On Sun, Sep 21, 2003 at 11:43:47AM -0400, Marco Paganini wrote: > Hello Robert, Larry, > > First of all, my sincere apologies for taking so long to respond. I've been > traveling frequently and for some reason, the original sender (Robert?) did > not respond to the confirmation message. I believe your anti-spam system > classified the confirmation as spam and you never saw it... Hmmm... Got to > think of a way to prevent that... I don't have any anti-spam system as of now, but I do recieve a lot of junk mail, so I could have mistakenly deleted it. What was the subject? > Yes, I am interested in your help with ASK+Debian. I packaged ASK myself but > I'm not an "expert" in packaging .deb files, as you can see. :) We need someone to maintain the package, if you're not an "expert" that's no big deal, you can always learn as you go (and we'll help you on it). Being a debian maintainer implies some dedication though. Would you like to be the ASK maintainer in debian? > Can you verify if indeed your anti-spam system classified the confirmation as > spam? That seems to be the case. Also, I had a period of about a week when my > domain didn't resolve, due to provider problems. :(((. Could have been that > as well. Uhm.. yes, that could also explain it. > > Ok, It's been a week and got no response from Marco Paganigi. > > > > I won't package or even sponsor ASK in such a situation. I'm retitling this > > bug to RFP. > > Hmmm... What's RFP? > > Again, sorry for all this confusion. It means "Request For Package". The former status was ITP, "Intent To Package". If you intend to maintain ASK for Debian, then please set it back to ITP and set yourself as ITPer by mailing to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and saying: retitle 160529 ITP: ask -- Active Spam Killer submitter 160529 Marco Paganini <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> thanks -- Robert Millan "[..] but the delight and pride of Aule is in the deed of making, and in the thing made, and neither in possession nor in his own mastery; wherefore he gives and hoards not, and is free from care, passing ever on to some new work." -- J.R.R.T, Ainulindale (Silmarillion)
Bug#160529: ASK is RFPed
Hello Robert, > I don't have any anti-spam system as of now, but I do recieve a lot of junk > mail, so I could have mistakenly deleted it. What was the subject? It could be. The subject was probably something like: Please Confirm (#12345678901234567890123456789012) Some people argue it looks a lot like spam. In any case, the email remained queued and I was able to "fish" it out of the queue. > We need someone to maintain the package, if you're not an "expert" that's no > big deal, you can always learn as you go (and we'll help you on it). Being a > debian maintainer implies some dedication though. Would you like to be the ASK > maintainer in debian? That would be interesting. My idea is to remodel the Makefile to generate the package correctly, minimizing friction. What else is expected of my if I'm a Debian maintainer? Sorry for my ignorance, I'm a happy Debian user, but I don't have a clue of what being a Debian mainteiner means. > It means "Request For Package". The former status was ITP, "Intent To > Package". > If you intend to maintain ASK for Debian, then please set it back to ITP and > set yourself as ITPer by mailing to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and saying: > > retitle 160529 ITP: ask -- Active Spam Killer > submitter 160529 Marco Paganini <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> I'll do as soon as I know that I can provide good service to the community. I do intend to be the maintainer, but I need to know if my (at the moment) rather busy schedule won't damage my image as a maintainer (I think not, but...). Again, can you point me to a document on the duties of a Debian package maintainer? Regards, Paga > thanks > > -- > Robert Millan > > "[..] but the delight and pride of Aule is in the deed of making, and in the > thing made, and neither in possession nor in his own mastery; wherefore he > gives and hoards not, and is free from care, passing ever on to some new > work." > > -- J.R.R.T, Ainulindale (Silmarillion) -- Marco Paganini | UNIX / Linux / Networking [EMAIL PROTECTED] | PGP: http://www.paganini.net/pgp/ http://www.paganini.net | Magnus Frater te spectat...
Bug#160529: ASK is RFPed
On Tue, Sep 23, 2003 at 08:07:51PM -0400, Marco Paganini wrote: > > It could be. The subject was probably something like: > > Please Confirm (#12345678901234567890123456789012) > > Some people argue it looks a lot like spam. In any case, the email remained > queued and I was able to "fish" it out of the queue. It does indeed sound a lot like spam; I wouldn't be surprised if I just deleted it without even reading the body. Maybe you could make it contain the original Subject? A standard response prefix such as "Re: $subject" would be nice. > That would be interesting. My idea is to remodel the Makefile to generate the > package correctly, minimizing friction. That's good, although not strictly necessary. > What else is expected of my if I'm > a Debian maintainer? Sorry for my ignorance, I'm a happy Debian user, but I > don't have a clue of what being a Debian mainteiner means. I suggest you read the New Maintainers' Guide: http://www.debian.org/doc/maint-guide/ For an _exhaustive_ reference there's the Developers' Reference manual: http://www.debian.org/doc/developers-reference/ And finaly, there's the debian-mentors mailing list if you need help learning maintainership issues. > I'll do as soon as I know that I can provide good service to the community. I > do intend to be the maintainer, but I need to know if my (at the moment) > rather busy schedule won't damage my image as a maintainer (I think not, > but...). This is something you need to decide yourself, I'm afraid. You can always try and if you don't like it leave the task for someone else. -- Robert Millan "[..] but the delight and pride of Aule is in the deed of making, and in the thing made, and neither in possession nor in his own mastery; wherefore he gives and hoards not, and is free from care, passing ever on to some new work." -- J.R.R.T, Ainulindale (Silmarillion)
Bug#160529: ASK is RFPed
On Fri, Sep 26, 2003 at 09:55:01AM -0400, Marco Paganini wrote: > Hi Robert, Larry, > > > It does indeed sound a lot like spam; I wouldn't be surprised if I just > > deleted it without even reading the body. > > > > Maybe you could make it contain the original Subject? A standard response > > prefix such as "Re: $subject" would be nice. > > Even though it keeps the "In-Reply-To" header reference right, it does > not seem to be enough. The subject contain a "key" to find the original > message, hence the strange number. I'm considering moving the number inside > the body of the message, even though it would make it more vulnerable to > autoresponders (they normally keep the body, not the subject). I suggest you keep it in the Subject, but not replacing the original one. For example if my message has subject "Foobar", then the response could be something like "Re: foobar (blah)", where "blah" is the code number. > > This is something you need to decide yourself, I'm afraid. You can always > > try and if you don't like it leave the task for someone else. > > OK. You had me convinced. I'll change it to ITP, read the whole If you want to ITP, retitle the bug ASAP to avoid confusion. > documentation, see what's wrong with the package and fix it. Then, there's > a million questions more, like "How do I make it available in the Debian > archives?" and so on... When you think the package is in shape (try running lintian on it), send me the sources (orig.tar.gz, diff.gz and dsc) on private mail. I'll sponsor it. P.S: please keep the CC to [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- Robert Millan "[..] but the delight and pride of Aule is in the deed of making, and in the thing made, and neither in possession nor in his own mastery; wherefore he gives and hoards not, and is free from care, passing ever on to some new work." -- J.R.R.T, Ainulindale (Silmarillion)
Bug#160529: ASK is RFPed
Hi Robert, > I suggest you keep it in the Subject, but not replacing the original one. For > example if my message has subject "Foobar", then the response could be > something like "Re: foobar (blah)", where "blah" is the code number. That is an option as well. But if that's the case, I'll have to reduce the size of the MD5 signature. Some mailers wrap, cut and do other strange things to the Subject line. > If you want to ITP, retitle the bug ASAP to avoid confusion. Just did. > > When you think the package is in shape (try running lintian on it), send me > the sources (orig.tar.gz, diff.gz and dsc) on private mail. I'll sponsor > it. I did and it just says: W: ask: prerm-does-not-remove-usr-doc-link W: ask: postinst-does-not-set-usr-doc-link W: ask: readme-debian-is-debmake-template W: ask: unusual-interpreter ./usr/bin/ask.py #!python2.2 W: ask: unusual-interpreter ./usr/bin/asksetup.py #!python2.2 W: ask: unusual-interpreter ./usr/bin/askversion.py #!python2.2 W: ask: unusual-interpreter ./usr/bin/asksenders.py #!python2.2 I'll try to fix those issues, even though I think I've stumbled upon the python issue before (python *is* really called python2.2, but lintian insists that there's something fishy about it). > P.S: please keep the CC to [EMAIL PROTECTED] Curiosity: What's this address? Regards, Paga > > -- Robert Millan > > "[..] but the delight and pride of Aule is in the deed of making, and in > the thing made, and neither in possession nor in his own mastery; wherefore > he gives and hoards not, and is free from care, passing ever on to some new > work." > > -- J.R.R.T, Ainulindale (Silmarillion) -- Marco Paganini | UNIX / Linux / Networking [EMAIL PROTECTED] | PGP: http://www.paganini.net/pgp/ http://www.paganini.net | Magnus Frater te spectat...
Bug#160529: ASK is RFPed
On Fri, Sep 26, 2003 at 06:09:18PM -0400, Marco Paganini wrote: > Hi Robert, Hi. > I did and it just says: > > W: ask: prerm-does-not-remove-usr-doc-link > W: ask: postinst-does-not-set-usr-doc-link Not really important. > W: ask: readme-debian-is-debmake-template Either remove README.Debian or add some notes to it. > W: ask: unusual-interpreter ./usr/bin/ask.py #!python2.2 > W: ask: unusual-interpreter ./usr/bin/asksetup.py #!python2.2 > W: ask: unusual-interpreter ./usr/bin/askversion.py #!python2.2 > W: ask: unusual-interpreter ./usr/bin/asksenders.py #!python2.2 That should be "#!/usr/bin/python2.2" (or better, 2.3). > > P.S: please keep the CC to [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > Curiosity: What's this address? It's the bug log in WNPP (the ITP in this case). Everything sent to it is archived. See http://bugs.debian.org/160529 For details on the bug tracking system: http://bugs.debian.org/ -- Robert Millan "[..] but the delight and pride of Aule is in the deed of making, and in the thing made, and neither in possession nor in his own mastery; wherefore he gives and hoards not, and is free from care, passing ever on to some new work." -- J.R.R.T, Ainulindale (Silmarillion)
Bug#160529: ASK is RFPed
> > I did and it just says: > > > > W: ask: prerm-does-not-remove-usr-doc-link > > W: ask: postinst-does-not-set-usr-doc-link > > Not really important. Is there a way to "remove" these, just like in lint? Something inside the package itself that tells lintian to ignore those? > > W: ask: readme-debian-is-debmake-template > > Either remove README.Debian or add some notes to it. OK. > > W: ask: unusual-interpreter ./usr/bin/ask.py #!python2.2 > > W: ask: unusual-interpreter ./usr/bin/asksetup.py #!python2.2 > > W: ask: unusual-interpreter ./usr/bin/askversion.py #!python2.2 > > W: ask: unusual-interpreter ./usr/bin/asksenders.py #!python2.2 > > That should be "#!/usr/bin/python2.2" (or better, 2.3). That's the thing: Python's documentation suggests the use of "env", to make the physical location of python irrelevant. But the question is: How do I tell lintian that "env" is OK? Regards, Paga -- Marco Paganini | UNIX / Linux / Networking [EMAIL PROTECTED] | PGP: http://www.paganini.net/pgp/ http://www.paganini.net | Magnus Frater te spectat...
Bug#160529: ASK is RFPed
On Sat, Sep 27, 2003 at 03:27:53PM -0400, Marco Paganini wrote: > > > I did and it just says: > > > > > > W: ask: prerm-does-not-remove-usr-doc-link > > > W: ask: postinst-does-not-set-usr-doc-link I forgot to say you should pass "-i" to lintian, so that it outputs the full warning/error message once for each warning/error type. > > Not really important. > > Is there a way to "remove" these, just like in lint? Something inside > the package itself that tells lintian to ignore those? I'm not sure if you should remove them. Please paste the full lintian warning. > > > W: ask: unusual-interpreter ./usr/bin/ask.py #!python2.2 > > > > That should be "#!/usr/bin/python2.2" (or better, 2.3). > > That's the thing: Python's documentation suggests the use of "env", to > make the physical location of python irrelevant. But the question is: > How do I tell lintian that "env" is OK? Sometimes Debian's policy disagrees with upstream's (in this case Python's upstream). In these cases your package should always follow Debian's policy rather than upstream's. On this situation, Debian policy follows the FHS standard (you should read that too, btw), which mandates the physical location of python should be "/usr/bin/". Since the location of phyton is standarised in Debian, the use of relative path may not be needed. Again, the full lintian warning message seems relevant here. -- Robert Millan "[..] but the delight and pride of Aule is in the deed of making, and in the thing made, and neither in possession nor in his own mastery; wherefore he gives and hoards not, and is free from care, passing ever on to some new work." -- J.R.R.T, Ainulindale (Silmarillion)
Bug#160529: ASK is RFPed
On Sun, Sep 28, 2003 at 04:25:03PM +, Robert Millan wrote: > I'm not sure if you should remove them. Please paste the full lintian > warning. W: ask: prerm-does-not-remove-usr-doc-link N: N: The technical committee chose the symlink transition method to move N: from FSSTND to FHS. This transition involves setting the link in the N: postinst script and removing it in the prerm script. Here is an N: example (/bin/sh): N:if [ \( "$1" = "upgrade" -o "$1" = "remove" \) -a -L /usr/doc/pkg ]; then N: rm -f /usr/doc/pkg N:fi N: The test for this is not perfect. If you are setting the link, please N: send the line of code to us so we can improve the test. N: W: ask: postinst-does-not-set-usr-doc-link N: N: The technical committee chose the symlink transition method to move N: from FSSTND to FHS. This transition involves setting the link in the N: postinst script and removing it in the prerm script. Here is an N: example (/bin/sh): N:if [ "$1" = "configure" ]; then N: if [ -d /usr/doc -a ! -e /usr/doc/pkg -a -d /usr/share/doc/pkg ]; then N: ln -sf ../share/doc/pkg /usr/doc/pkg N: fi N:fi N: The test for this is not perfect. If you are setting the link, please N: send the line of code to us so we can improve the test. N: > > > > W: ask: unusual-interpreter ./usr/bin/ask.py #!python2.2 > > > > > > That should be "#!/usr/bin/python2.2" (or better, 2.3). > > > > That's the thing: Python's documentation suggests the use of "env", to > > make the physical location of python irrelevant. But the question is: > > How do I tell lintian that "env" is OK? > > Sometimes Debian's policy disagrees with upstream's (in this case Python's > upstream). In these cases your package should always follow Debian's policy > rather than upstream's. I fixed this one. The problem is that when I packaged ASK for the first time, the "python" package meant "Python 2.1" and due to some bugs in 2.1, I had to _require_ Python 2.2. But then comes the catch: If I put /usr/bin/python2.2 as the interpreter (back then, the interpreter location for Python 2.2), and "Requires: Python2.2 (>=2.2.0)", lintian complained that this is an "unusual interpreter" (even without the env). Then, I tried the interpreter as "/usr/bin/python". Lintian would then complain that even though this was a python script, python was not a requirement (because the package name was python2.2, not python). It seems OK now, as "python" refers to python2.2 and a symlink exists under /usr/bin/python pointing to the correct version. > On this situation, Debian policy follows the FHS standard (you should read > that > too, btw), which mandates the physical location of python should be > "/usr/bin/". Since the location of phyton is standarised in Debian, the > use of relative path may not be needed. /me reads the FHS. Just when I got used to fsstnd... :) > Again, the full lintian warning message seems relevant here. I'll modify it once more to declare the "templates" as configuration files. Some people modify the originals. Having them overwritten on upgrade is a bad idea... Regards, Paga > -- > Robert Millan > > "[..] but the delight and pride of Aule is in the deed of making, and in the > thing made, and neither in possession nor in his own mastery; wherefore he > gives and hoards not, and is free from care, passing ever on to some new > work." > > -- J.R.R.T, Ainulindale (Silmarillion) -- Marco Paganini | UNIX / Linux / Networking [EMAIL PROTECTED] | PGP: http://www.paganini.net/pgp/ http://www.paganini.net | Magnus Frater te spectat...
Bug#160529: ASK is RFPed
On Sun, Sep 28, 2003 at 03:42:51PM -0400, Marco Paganini wrote: > On Sun, Sep 28, 2003 at 04:25:03PM +, Robert Millan wrote: > > > I'm not sure if you should remove them. Please paste the full lintian > > warning. > > W: ask: prerm-does-not-remove-usr-doc-link Ah, ok. Safely ignorable, it's for upgrading from pre-FHS packages IIRC. Just make sure your docs are in /usr/share/doc/ and not in /usr/doc/. > > Sometimes Debian's policy disagrees with upstream's (in this case Python's > > upstream). In these cases your package should always follow Debian's policy > > rather than upstream's. > > I fixed this one. The problem is that when I packaged ASK for the first time, > the "python" package meant "Python 2.1" and due to some bugs in 2.1, I had to > _require_ Python 2.2. But then comes the catch: If I put /usr/bin/python2.2 > as the interpreter (back then, the interpreter location for Python 2.2), > and "Requires: Python2.2 (>=2.2.0)", If you mean the entry for debian/control, that'd be "Depends: python2.2" if you really need 2.2 or "Depends: python (>= 2.2)" if any later version will work. > > Again, the full lintian warning message seems relevant here. > > I'll modify it once more to declare the "templates" as configuration > files. Some people modify the originals. Having them overwritten on upgrade > is a bad idea... Do you refer to /usr/bin/ask.py and such? You can't set these as conffiles, since all stuff in /usr could well be read-only. The Debian way of doing this is that /usr/bin/ask.py itself doesn't need to be modified. A helper conffile might be put in /etc, ~/.ask or something. Btw, I suggest you rename it to /usr/bin/ask. We tend to remove the language extensions such as .pl or .sh when installing stuff in /usr/bin. -- Robert Millan "[..] but the delight and pride of Aule is in the deed of making, and in the thing made, and neither in possession nor in his own mastery; wherefore he gives and hoards not, and is free from care, passing ever on to some new work." -- J.R.R.T, Ainulindale (Silmarillion)
Bug#160529: ASK is RFPed
Hi Robert, > Ah, ok. Safely ignorable, it's for upgrading from pre-FHS packages IIRC. Just > make sure your docs are in /usr/share/doc/ and not in /usr/doc/. OK. Perfect. > > I fixed this one. The problem is that when I packaged ASK for the first > > time, > > the "python" package meant "Python 2.1" and due to some bugs in 2.1, I had > > to > > _require_ Python 2.2. But then comes the catch: If I put /usr/bin/python2.2 > > as the interpreter (back then, the interpreter location for Python 2.2), > > and "Requires: Python2.2 (>=2.2.0)", > > If you mean the entry for debian/control, that'd be "Depends: python2.2" if > you really need 2.2 or "Depends: python (>= 2.2)" if any later version will > work. Exactly what I did. The problem, at the time, is that there was no package called "python" with version >=2.2. Python 2.2's package was called "python2.2", hence the confusion. But it's all OK now. I require "python (>=2.2)" > > > > Again, the full lintian warning message seems relevant here. > > > > I'll modify it once more to declare the "templates" as configuration > > files. Some people modify the originals. Having them overwritten on upgrade > > is a bad idea... > > Do you refer to /usr/bin/ask.py and such? You can't set these as conffiles, > since all stuff in /usr could well be read-only. No. This one is immutable. The templates are in fact text files that the average user may choose to change. I cheched the FHS and it's not very clear to me where I should put those files? /var/lib? Note that they're usually copied into the user's home directory for use. We can think of them as "skeleton" files, but they may be edited directly. > Btw, I suggest you rename it to /usr/bin/ask. We tend to remove the language > extensions such as .pl or .sh when installing stuff in /usr/bin. It is strictly necessary? I really don't like having the extension, but I fear "ask" is too common a name to be under /usr/bin without causing conflict. Another concern is to break existing scripts. Opinions? One question: I need to make ask dependent on some kind of MTA. What should I use? "Depends: mta" ? Is there anything "virtual" called mta that resolves to any of them? Regards, Paga > > -- > Robert Millan > > "[..] but the delight and pride of Aule is in the deed of making, and in the > thing made, and neither in possession nor in his own mastery; wherefore he > gives and hoards not, and is free from care, passing ever on to some new > work." > > -- J.R.R.T, Ainulindale (Silmarillion) -- Marco Paganini | UNIX / Linux / Networking [EMAIL PROTECTED] | PGP: http://www.paganini.net/pgp/ http://www.paganini.net | Magnus Frater te spectat...
Bug#160529: ASK is RFPed
Hi, On Wed, Oct 01, 2003 at 12:04:21AM -0400, Marco Paganini wrote: > > Do you refer to /usr/bin/ask.py and such? You can't set these as conffiles, > > since all stuff in /usr could well be read-only. > > No. This one is immutable. The templates are in fact text files that the > average user may choose to change. I cheched the FHS and it's not very > clear to me where I should put those files? /var/lib? Note that they're > usually copied into the user's home directory for use. We can think of > them as "skeleton" files, but they may be edited directly. If they're executables they should be in /bin or /usr/bin, but if they are editable they can't be in / or /usr hierrachy, so we're at dead end. The good solution would be to split the "editable" portion of ask.py and put it into a file that can be edited in another location. An alternative could be to put ask.py in /etc/ hierrachy and symlink it from /usr/bin/. > > Btw, I suggest you rename it to /usr/bin/ask. We tend to remove the language > > extensions such as .pl or .sh when installing stuff in /usr/bin. > > It is strictly necessary? I really don't like having the extension, but > I fear "ask" is too common a name to be under /usr/bin without causing > conflict. Another concern is to break existing scripts. Opinions? Uhm.. I'm not sure. Could you ask this in debian-devel? (and keep me on CC) > I need to make ask dependent on some kind of MTA. What should I > use? "Depends: mta" ? Is there anything "virtual" called mta that resolves to > any of them? The virtual package provided by all MTAs is "mail-transport-agent", but you shouldn't depend on virtual packages directly. Instead, depend on your favourite MTA and fallback to mail-transport-agent, e.g: Depends: exim | mail-transport-agent -- Robert Millan "[..] but the delight and pride of Aule is in the deed of making, and in the thing made, and neither in possession nor in his own mastery; wherefore he gives and hoards not, and is free from care, passing ever on to some new work." -- J.R.R.T, Ainulindale (Silmarillion)
