MR of pt_BR localization files for packages.d.o

[Thiago Pezzo (tico)]

Hi there, Webmaster team,

In behalf of the Brazilian Portuguese localization team [1], I've done a MR to
localize packages.d.o to pt_BR [2]. When possible, could you please accept the
MR?

[1] https://wiki.debian.org/Brasil/Traduzir
[2] https://salsa.debian.org/webmaster-team/packages/-/merge_requests/25

Thanks! Keep up the good work!
Thiago Pezzo (tico)
Debian pt_BR Localization Team

"List of files" links broken for arch:all packages on packages.d.o

[наб]

Hi!

Not sure if this is the perfect place for this, but I assume I'll get
pointed in the right direxion if it isn't.

As an example, go to
  https://packages.debian.org/sid/python-libevdev-doc
whose [list of files] link goes to
  https://packages.debian.org/sid/all/python-libevdev-doc/filelist
which returns an
  Error
  No such package in this suite on this architecture.
but going to 
  https://packages.debian.org/sid/any/python-libevdev-doc/filelist
instead does give the list, nominally for alpha.

I've tried following the code but my inability to parse Perl made any
sensible solution unachievable for me, hence the lack of patch.

Best,
наб


signature.asc
Description: PGP signature

Bug#346328: marked as done (packages.debian.org: packages.d.o is down message.)

[Debian Bug Tracking System]

Your message dated Thu, 31 Dec 2020 11:41:19 +0100
with message-id <24557.43727.428920.375...@cs.uni-koeln.de>
and subject line closing
has caused the Debian Bug report #346328,
regarding packages.debian.org: packages.d.o is down message.
to be marked as done.

This means that you claim that the problem has been dealt with.
If this is not the case it is now your responsibility to reopen the
Bug report if necessary, and/or fix the problem forthwith.

(NB: If you are a system administrator and have no idea what this
message is talking about, this may indicate a serious mail system
misconfiguration somewhere. Please contact ow...@bugs.debian.org
immediately.)


-- 
346328: https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=346328
Debian Bug Tracking System
Contact ow...@bugs.debian.org with problems
--- Begin Message ---
Package: www.debian.org
Severity: wishlist

Hi,

The actual "p.d.o is down" message is:

"packages.debian.org is down at the moment.

We apologize for any inconvenience and hope to have service restored as
soon as possible.

We're working on resurrecting this service but it will take some time.

You can use apt-file, apt-cache search and findpkg (--> Google) as a
temporary replacement."


I think we can inform about PTS and remove Google direct reference as in
the following message:

"packages.debian.org is down at the moment.

We apologize for any inconvenience and hope to have service restored as
soon as possible.

We're working on resurrecting this service but it will take some time.

You can use apt-file or auto-apt utilities (both debian packages), go to
Debian Package Tracking System[0] or a web search engine as a temporary
replacement."

[0] =  to qa.d.o/developer.php

Hope that helps,
Gustavo Franco - 

--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
I think there's no need in changing the message.

Nobody took care about this bug for so long, therefore I decide to
close this bug.

-- 
regards Thomas--- End Message ---

Bug#514658: marked as done (sponsor recognition on packages.d.o)

[Debian Bug Tracking System]

Your message dated Thu, 31 Dec 2020 11:10:31 +0100
with message-id <24557.41879.453609.561...@cs.uni-koeln.de>
and subject line closing
has caused the Debian Bug report #514658,
regarding sponsor recognition on packages.d.o
to be marked as done.

This means that you claim that the problem has been dealt with.
If this is not the case it is now your responsibility to reopen the
Bug report if necessary, and/or fix the problem forthwith.

(NB: If you are a system administrator and have no idea what this
message is talking about, this may indicate a serious mail system
misconfiguration somewhere. Please contact ow...@bugs.debian.org
immediately.)


-- 
514658: https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=514658
Debian Bug Tracking System
Contact ow...@bugs.debian.org with problems
--- Begin Message ---
Package: www.debian.org
Version: 2009-02-09
Severity: normal

So,

all pages on packages.d.o give credit to our kind sponsors in a footer.
The only exception is the entry page, http://packages.debian.org/
because it is a redirect to http://www.debian.org/distrib/packages and
there is no pointer to sponsors or anyone there.

It would be good if we could thank our sponsors on the most prominent
page of that service.

I don't know what the best way to fix this is, we could either move the
start page back onto packages.d.o, but need some infrastructure to deal
with translations - otoh we may already have that for some of the things
on packages.d.o.  Or we duplicate the sponsor info in webwml, or
packages.d.o uses the sponsor info stored in some form in webwml.

Peter
-- 
   |  .''`.  ** Debian GNU/Linux **
  Peter Palfrader  | : :' :  The  universal
 http://www.palfrader.org/ | `. `'  Operating System
   |   `-http://www.debian.org/


--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
This bug is very old (about 10 years) and I think old bugs need a
decision if we want to fix them or wontfix and close.

Rhonda didn't get an anwser from weasel if 1&1 asked us to add the
link to them on this page. I also think that we should focus on
www.debian.org/partners/

Nobody took care about this bug for so long, therefore I decide to
close this bug.

-- 
regards Thomas--- End Message ---

packages.d.o unable to show binary packages content

[Sandro Tosi]

Hello,
take for example
https://packages.debian.org/sid/all/python3-starlette/filelist , it
only shows an error message "No such package in this suite on this
architecture" ; this is happening for all the packages i look up, but
it seems to be only affecting the `all` arch, f.e.

https://packages.debian.org/sid/amd64/python3-matplotlib/filelist -- OK
https://packages.debian.org/sid/all/python-matplotlib-data/filelist -- error

can you have a look, please?

Thanks,
-- 
Sandro "morph" Tosi
My website: http://sandrotosi.me/
Me at Debian: http://wiki.debian.org/SandroTosi
Twitter: https://twitter.com/sandrotosi

Re: packages.d.o: correct debian-policy links

[Holger Wansing]

Hi,

Holger Wansing  wrote:
> Hi,
> 
> attached is a patch to correct some broken debian-policy links on packages.d.o
> 
> I will apply it shortly.

Now pushed.

> But I wonder if there is some special action needed, to get the site newly
> built with such changings? What triggers the site build?
> I cannot find anything related in the webmaster-team/cron repo...

Let's see how that goes...


Holger

-- 
Holger Wansing 
PGP-Fingerprint: 496A C6E8 1442 4B34 8508  3529 59F1 87CA 156E B076

packages.d.o: correct debian-policy links

[Holger Wansing]

Hi,

attached is a patch to correct some broken debian-policy links on packages.d.o

I will apply it shortly.

But I wonder if there is some special action needed, to get the site newly
built with such changings? What triggers the site build?
I cannot find anything related in the webmaster-team/cron repo...


Holger

-- 
Holger Wansing 
PGP-Fingerprint: 496A C6E8 1442 4B34 8508  3529 59F1 87CA 156E B076
diff --git a/lib/Parse/DebianChangelog.pm b/lib/Parse/DebianChangelog.pm
index cc48e1b..e6a87f4 100644
--- a/lib/Parse/DebianChangelog.pm
+++ b/lib/Parse/DebianChangelog.pm
@@ -1255,7 +1255,7 @@ with only one of the options specified.
 Parse::DebianChangelog::Entry, Parse::DebianChangelog::ChangesFilters
 
 Description of the Debian changelog format in the Debian policy:
-L<https://www.debian.org/doc/debian-policy/#debian-changelog-debian-changelog>.
+L<https://www.debian.org/doc/debian-policy/ch-source.html#debian-changelog-debian-changelog>.
 
 =head1 AUTHOR
 
diff --git a/templates/config/archive_layout.tmpl b/templates/config/archive_layout.tmpl
index 4bb5dba..e5354bc 100644
--- a/templates/config/archive_layout.tmpl
+++ b/templates/config/archive_layout.tmpl
@@ -19,9 +19,9 @@
 }
 
section_urls = {
-main => 'https://www.debian.org/doc/debian-policy/#the-main-archive-area',
-contrib => 'https://www.debian.org/doc/debian-policy/#the-contrib-archive-area',
-'non-free' => 'https://www.debian.org/doc/debian-policy/#the-non-free-archive-area',
+main => 'https://www.debian.org/doc/debian-policy/ch-archive.html#the-main-archive-area',
+contrib => 'https://www.debian.org/doc/debian-policy/ch-archive.html#the-contrib-archive-area',
+'non-free' => 'https://www.debian.org/doc/debian-policy/ch-archive.html#the-non-free-archive-area',
 }
 
 %]
diff --git a/templates/html/show.tmpl b/templates/html/show.tmpl
index a586f8c..6db1068 100644
--- a/templates/html/show.tmpl
+++ b/templates/html/show.tmpl
@@ -58,7 +58,7 @@
 [% END %]
 [%- PROCESS marker text=archive title=mirrors.$archive.title url=mirrors.$archive.url IF archive && archive != main_archive %]
 [%- PROCESS marker text=section title=section_titles.$section url=section_urls.$section IF section && section != main_section %]
-[%- PROCESS marker text=g('essential') title=g('package manager will refuse to remove this package by default') url='https://www.debian.org/doc/debian-policy/#essential-packages' IF page.get_newest('essential') == 'yes' %]
+[%- PROCESS marker text=g('essential') title=g('package manager will refuse to remove this package by default') url='https://www.debian.org/doc/debian-policy/ch-binary.html#essential-packages' IF page.get_newest('essential') == 'yes' %]
 
 [% UNLESS is_virtual %]
 
@@ -196,7 +196,7 @@
 	[% END %]
 [% ELSE %]
 
-	[% g('This is a virtual package. See the Debian policy for a definition of virtual packages.',
+	[% g('This is a virtual package. See the https://www.debian.org/doc/debian-policy/;>Debian policy for a https://www.debian.org/doc/debian-policy/ch-binary.html#virtual-packages;>definition of virtual packages.',
 		policy_url, policy_url) %]
 [% END %]
  

Re: packages.d.o: gcc package search is resulting in "Your keyword was too generic"

[Phil Endecott]

Carsten Schoenert wrote:

Hello Phil,

Am 13.06.19 um 16:14 schrieb Phil Endecott:
...

So the output of the search is mostly correct.


I disagree; "Your keyword was too generic" suggests that there must be
thousands of packages matching the search term, not zero.


well, than you didn't have clicked on the link that is embedded in the
answer from the search engine.

  https://packages.debian.org/search?keywords=gcc

And yes, there are 'thousands' ... :)


I did see that link, labelled "Some", but it removes the backports-only filter,
so it's no longer the search that I wanted - packages matching "gcc" in 
backports.

But this doesn't matter if you're not the right people to fix it.

BTW Carsten, my direct email to you bounces with a useless error message:
"A problem occurred. (Ask your postmaster for help or to contact
t...@rx.t-online.de to clarify.)".  But I guess that wouldn't be the
right email address.


Regards, Phil.

Re: packages.d.o: gcc package search is resulting in "Your keyword was too generic"

[Carsten Schoenert]

Hello Michael,

Am 13.06.19 um 16:35 schrieb Michael Kesper:

[snip]
>>>> But there are no backports of the gcc versions available! So the output
>>>> of the search is mostly correct.
> 
> I think packages.d.o. could be a little bit smarter here.
> We _know_ for a fact that stretch-backports is a "backport" of a 
> "distribution version".
> So if we don't find it there, point to another distribution version?

there are a lot of possibilities, some of them are useful some probably not.
I wont hold back someone who is willing to have a look at all to improve
the search of course. ;) But I'm not the one who will do anything here,
no knowledge nor time to do so. I also wont have currently any interest
to look into the code and as I see it's mostly Perl, so I'm out at all. :)

> I did not look at the code yet (there's also no pointer on that site where we 
> can
> find that).

Have you looked into the footer?

https://packages.debian.org/about/

There is all listed you want to know I'd say.

-- 
Regards
Carsten Schoenert

Re: packages.d.o: gcc package search is resulting in "Your keyword was too generic"

[Carsten Schoenert]

Hello Phil,

Am 13.06.19 um 16:14 schrieb Phil Endecott:
...
>> So the output of the search is mostly correct.
> 
> I disagree; "Your keyword was too generic" suggests that there must be
> thousands of packages matching the search term, not zero.

well, than you didn't have clicked on the link that is embedded in the
answer from the search engine.

  https://packages.debian.org/search?keywords=gcc

And yes, there are 'thousands' ... :)

-- 
Regards
Carsten Schoenert

Re: packages.d.o: gcc package search is resulting in "Your keyword was too generic"

[Michael Kesper]

Hi Carsten,

On 13.06.19 16:20, Carsten Schoenert wrote:
> Hello Michael,
> 
> Am 13.06.19 um 15:47 schrieb Michael Kesper:
>>> This list is about the Debian websites and the maintenance of them, so> 
>>> unfortunately you are on the wrong list for asking such questions.
>>
>> Unfortunately, that's the only address given visibly on the packages.d.o 
>> site:
>> To report a problem with the web site, please e-mail our publicly archived 
>> mailing
>>  list debian-www@lists.debian.org in English. For other contact information,
>>  see the Debian contact page. Web site source code is available.
>>
>> So our site pointed Phil right here (I think we cannot expect people
>> to go back to a general contact page if they have a problem with a
>> specific site).
> 
> I disagree a bit here.
> The user should be able to distinguish between core issues about
> functionality and features of the websites and technical questions about
> packages.

But maybe a FAQ or something about packages.d.o. could be shown on
packages.d.o. website
"I don't get any results" ...
 
> For me the main thing in the post was to find possible backported
> versions of gcc. Not the search was misbehaving. And mostly people
> aren't reading the search output well enough (I count me in here too ...
> sometimes). 

But doesn't that strengthen the point the messages need improvement?

> Even here by the example of Phil there is also a link
> presented which is lowering the search parameter and pointing to
> 
>   https://packages.debian.org/search?keywords=gcc
> 
> This site will show you all matching packages. If you can't find your
> package in the suite you are looking for it's really likely it doesn't
> exist there.

Hmm, this seems to use a "limit 100" which is understandable but could
lead to exactly NOT providing what I searched for.

 
>>> But there are no backports of the gcc versions available! So the output
>>> of the search is mostly correct.

I think packages.d.o. could be a little bit smarter here.
We _know_ for a fact that stretch-backports is a "backport" of a "distribution 
version".
So if we don't find it there, point to another distribution version?
I did not look at the code yet (there's also no pointer on that site where we 
can
find that).

Best wishes
Michael



signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature

Re: packages.d.o: gcc package search is resulting in "Your keyword was too generic"

[Phil Endecott]

Hi Carsten,

Carsten Schoenert wrote:

Hello Phil,



This list is about the Debian websites and the maintenance of them, so
unfortunately you are on the wrong list for asking such questions.

For better fitting support channels please visit

  https://www.debian.org/support


The error does come from the Debian website, and this address is
the one shown at the footer of the error page.  Maybe that could
be changed if it's wrong?

I've looked at https://www.debian.org/support, and clicked through
to the complete list of mailing lists at 
https://lists.debian.org/completeindex.html,
and I'm afraid I can't see a better choice for discussing issues with
the website package search than debian-www, sorry.


Specifically, today I found that the version of gcc in Stretch
was too old for something,


Really?
I never did experience such things. So the only thing I can image that
you want to use some C++17 or even C++19 features.


Yes, exactly.


But there are no backports of the gcc versions available!


That does seem to be true, as I eventually discovered.


So the output of the search is mostly correct.


I disagree; "Your keyword was too generic" suggests that there must be
thousands of packages matching the search term, not zero.

Anyway this is all off-topic if you are not the people who can fix it.


(Thanks also Michael for your replies.)


Thanks, Phil.

Re: packages.d.o: gcc package search is resulting in "Your keyword was too generic"

[Carsten Schoenert]

Hello Michael,

Am 13.06.19 um 15:47 schrieb Michael Kesper:
>> This list is about the Debian websites and the maintenance of them, so> 
>> unfortunately you are on the wrong list for asking such questions.
> 
> Unfortunately, that's the only address given visibly on the packages.d.o site:
> To report a problem with the web site, please e-mail our publicly archived 
> mailing
>  list debian-www@lists.debian.org in English. For other contact information,
>  see the Debian contact page. Web site source code is available.
> 
> So our site pointed Phil right here (I think we cannot expect people
> to go back to a general contact page if they have a problem with a
> specific site).

I disagree a bit here.
The user should be able to distinguish between core issues about
functionality and features of the websites and technical questions about
packages.

For me the main thing in the post was to find possible backported
versions of gcc. Not the search was misbehaving. And mostly people
aren't reading the search output well enough (I count me in here too ...
sometimes). Even here by the example of Phil there is also a link
presented which is lowering the search parameter and pointing to

  https://packages.debian.org/search?keywords=gcc

This site will show you all matching packages. If you can't find your
package in the suite you are looking for it's really likely it doesn't
exist there.

>> But there are no backports of the gcc versions available! So the output
>> of the search is mostly correct.
> 
> Yes but the message seems confusing to me, too.

The pure message that was quoted is an really generic message, yes. But
not confusing if the whole context is getting read by the user. And as
you know, there is also something that can be improved.

-- 
Regards
Carsten Schoenert

Re: packages.d.o: gcc package search is resulting in "Your keyword was too generic"

[Michael Kesper]

Hi Carsten,

On 13.06.19 15:39, Carsten Schoenert wrote:
> Am 13.06.19 um 13:55 schrieb Phil Endecott:
>> Dear debian-www@lists.debian.org,
>>
>> I'm not sure if you're the right contact for this, but if not
>> maybe you can redirect me.
> 
> This list is about the Debian websites and the maintenance of them, so> 
> unfortunately you are on the wrong list for asking such questions.

Unfortunately, that's the only address given visibly on the packages.d.o site:
To report a problem with the web site, please e-mail our publicly archived 
mailing
 list debian-www@lists.debian.org in English. For other contact information,
 see the Debian contact page. Web site source code is available.

So our site pointed Phil right here (I think we cannot expect people to go back 
to a general
contact page if they have a problem with a specific site).

>> This just says "Your keyword was too generic.  Please consider
>> using a longer keyword or more keywords."  So I know that there
>> are gcc packages in backports, but it won't tell me which.  What
>> longer keyword can I use? - the package is just called "gcc",
>> isn't it?
>>
>> Can something be done to fix this?
> 
> Well, yes.
> The package you are searching isn't called 'gcc', this is probably the> final 
> binary name you want to start on a cli or by scripts etc.

[...]

> But there are no backports of the gcc versions available! So the output
> of the search is mostly correct.

Yes but the message seems confusing to me, too.

Best wishes
Michael



signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature

packages.d.o: gcc package search is resulting in "Your keyword was too generic"

[Carsten Schoenert]

Hello Phil,

you have chosen to create an also really generic subject! :)
It a bit ironically as you complaining about the outcome while doing a
package search.

So I modified the subject to something more specific.

Am 13.06.19 um 13:55 schrieb Phil Endecott:
> Dear debian-www@lists.debian.org,
> 
> I'm not sure if you're the right contact for this, but if not
> maybe you can redirect me.

This list is about the Debian websites and the maintenance of them, so
unfortunately you are on the wrong list for asking such questions.

For better fitting support channels please visit

  https://www.debian.org/support

...
> I find the package search web pages at packages.debian.org are
> very often useless, because I get the message "Your keyword was
> too generic".
> 
> Specifically, today I found that the version of gcc in Stretch
> was too old for something,

Really?
I never did experience such things. So the only thing I can image that
you want to use some C++17 or even C++19 features.

> and I wondered what newer versions
> might be present in backports.  I ended up here:
> 
> https://packages.debian.org/search?keywords=gcc=names=all=stretch-backports
> 
> This just says "Your keyword was too generic.  Please consider
> using a longer keyword or more keywords."  So I know that there
> are gcc packages in backports, but it won't tell me which.  What
> longer keyword can I use? - the package is just called "gcc",
> isn't it?
> 
> Can something be done to fix this?

Well, yes.
The package you are searching isn't called 'gcc', this is probably the
final binary name you want to start on a cli or by scripts etc.

There are various major version of gcc available, the most recent
(stable) version is 8. So you will look for a package 'gcc-8' and so on.

But there are no backports of the gcc versions available! So the output
of the search is mostly correct.

I typically use a tool named 'rmadison', installed by the package
'devscripts', to get the available versions in the various releases of
an package. Note that rmadison is needing an internet connection as it's
query the Debian infrastructure.

> $ rmadison gcc-6
> gcc-6  | 6.3.0-18+deb9u1 | stable   | source, amd64, arm64, armel, 
> armhf, i386, mips, mips64el, mipsel, ppc64el, s390x
> gcc-6  | 6.3.0-18+deb9u1 | stable-debug | source

> $ rmadison gcc-8
> gcc-8  | 8.3.0-6   | testing | source, amd64, arm64, 
> armel, armhf, i386, mips, mips64el, mipsel, ppc64el, s390x
> gcc-8  | 8.3.0-7   | unstable| source, amd64, arm64, 
> armel, armhf, i386, mips, mips64el, mipsel, ppc64el, s390x
> gcc-8  | 8.3.0-7   | unstable-debug  | source
> gcc-8  | 8.3.0-13  | experimental| source, mips, mips64el, 
> mipsel
> gcc-8  | 8.3.0-13  | experimental-debug  | source
> gcc-8  | 8.3.0-14  | buildd-experimental | source, amd64, arm64, 
> armel, armhf, i386, mips, ppc64el, s390x
> gcc-8  | 8.3.0-14  | experimental| source, amd64, arm64, 
> armel, armhf, i386, mips, ppc64el, s390x
> gcc-8  | 8.3.0-14  | experimental-debug  | source

> $ rmadison gcc
> gcc| 4:4.9.2-2  | oldstable| amd64, armel, armhf, i386
> gcc| 4:6.3.0-4  | stable   | amd64, arm64, armel, armhf, 
> i386, mips, mips64el, mipsel, ppc64el, s390x
> gcc| 4:8.3.0-1  | testing  | amd64, arm64, armel, armhf, 
> i386, mips, mips64el, mipsel, ppc64el, s390x
> gcc| 4:8.3.0-1  | unstable | amd64, arm64, armel, armhf, 
> i386, mips, mips64el, mipsel, ppc64el, s390x
> gcc| 4:9-20181127-1 | experimental | amd64, arm64, armel, armhf, 
> i386, mips, mips64el, mipsel, ppc64el, s390x

Hu? A package gcc is available? Why? Have a look at the package description!

> $ LANG= apt show gcc
> Package: gcc
> Version: 4:8.3.0-1
> Priority: optional
> Build-Essential: yes
> Section: devel
> Source: gcc-defaults (1.181)
> Maintainer: Debian GCC Maintainers 
> Installed-Size: 46.1 kB
> Provides: c-compiler, gcc-x86-64-linux-gnu (= 4:8.3.0-1)
> Depends: cpp (= 4:8.3.0-1), gcc-8 (>= 8.3.0-1~)
> Recommends: libc6-dev | libc-dev
> Suggests: gcc-multilib, make, manpages-dev, autoconf, automake, libtool, 
> flex, bison, gdb, gcc-doc
> Conflicts: gcc-doc (<< 1:2.95.3)
> Tag: devel::compiler, devel::lang:c, devel::library, implemented-in::c,
>  interface::commandline, role::devel-lib, role::metapackage,
>  role::program, suite::gnu, works-with::software:source
> Download-Size: 5196 B
> APT-Manual-Installed: no
> APT-Sources: http://ftp.de.debian.org/debian testing/main amd64 Packages
> Description: GNU C compiler
>  This is the GNU C compiler, a fairly portable optimizing compiler for C.
>  .
>  This is a dependency package providing the default GNU C compiler.
> 
> N: There is 1 additional record. Please use the '-a' switch to see it

It's an virtual package that will have different depending in the
Stretch release.

-- 
Regards
Carsten Schoenert

Re: Packages.d.o src on Salsa? (Was: Re: A translation error in Chinese (simplified) version on https://packages.debian.org/)

[Laura Arjona Reina]

Hello

El 11 de mayo de 2018 4:21:02 CEST, Boyuan Yang <073p...@gmail.com> escribió:
>在 2018年5月11日星期五 CST 上午9:41:02，Paul Wise 写道：
>> On Thu, May 10, 2018 at 9:46 PM, 朱家贝 wrote:
>> 
>> 
>> > There is a error on the package website page: The introduction of
>the
>> > item
>> > "游戏（Game）" is "这些程序装完以后可以用来消谴娱乐。", but"消谴" should be "消遣".
>> 
>> 
>> Thanks, could you discuss this with the Chinese translation team?
>> 
>> https://lists.debian.org/debian-l10n-chinese/
>
>Ack. As a Chinese user I think that fix is reasonable. I have committed
>the 
>corresponding fix on git repo at
>https://anonscm.debian.org/git/webwml/packages.git.
>
>Besides, I think that typo might not be the biggest problem. I know
>that 
>packages.d.o source code was hosted under Alioth webwml group. However,
>I 
>really have no idea that where was it migrated after the Alioth
>decommission.
>

It is not migrated yet. We have time until end of May.

>Basically I am raising two issues here:
>
>* Where was packages.git repository migrated, or if that migration has
>not 
>taken place, where should we put it on Salsa? (perhaps
>https://salsa.debian.org/groups/webmaster-team/ ?)
>

If we want to keep a structure similar to the current one, it can go to 

https://salsa.debian.org/groups/webmaster-team/webwml/packages.git

with its own set of members and permissions.

>* Is there anyone that have access to running packages.d.o instance and
>could 
>help push the fixes onto the machine?
>

I think I have permissions but I'm not familiarised with the 
code/setup/deployment. I'm willing to learn and help if it's needed, but if 
other person is able and willing to take care about the migration to salsa and 
deployment, I prefer that, because I doubt I have clear mind and time to put on 
this until the very last week of May.

Cheers
-- 
Laura Arjona Reina
https://wiki.debian.org/LauraArjona
Sent with K-9 mail

Packages.d.o src on Salsa? (Was: Re: A translation error in Chinese (simplified) version on https://packages.debian.org/)

[Boyuan Yang]

在 2018年5月11日星期五 CST 上午9:41:02，Paul Wise 写道：
> On Thu, May 10, 2018 at 9:46 PM, 朱家贝 wrote:
> 
> 
> > There is a error on the package website page: The introduction of the
> > item
> > "游戏（Game）" is "这些程序装完以后可以用来消谴娱乐。", but"消谴" should be "消遣".
> 
> 
> Thanks, could you discuss this with the Chinese translation team?
> 
> https://lists.debian.org/debian-l10n-chinese/

Ack. As a Chinese user I think that fix is reasonable. I have committed the 
corresponding fix on git repo at
https://anonscm.debian.org/git/webwml/packages.git.

Besides, I think that typo might not be the biggest problem. I know that 
packages.d.o source code was hosted under Alioth webwml group. However, I 
really have no idea that where was it migrated after the Alioth decommission.

Basically I am raising two issues here:

* Where was packages.git repository migrated, or if that migration has not 
taken place, where should we put it on Salsa? (perhaps
https://salsa.debian.org/groups/webmaster-team/ ?)

* Is there anyone that have access to running packages.d.o instance and could 
help push the fixes onto the machine?

--
Thanks,
Boyuan Yang

signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.

Re: PTS link missing on packages.d.o

[Paul Wise]

On Wed, Apr 18, 2018 at 7:06 PM, Thorsten Glaser wrote:

> that is very ouch. It looks completely different, and its UI
> makes it hard to find things, I am very happy with p.qa.d.o.

Hmm, the UI seems like it is almost exactly the same to me.

> To whom do I have to talk to revert this decision of it
> “eventually going away”?

File bugs against tracker.debian.org for each regression.

Since the extra detail in the "action needed" section can now be
toggled without JS, I lost my main reason for using and working on the
PTS. The remaining things are either functionality regressions,
cosmetic things or unused features that I can ignore or workaround
with browser configuration.

-- 
bye,
pabs

https://wiki.debian.org/PaulWise

Re: PTS link missing on packages.d.o

[Thorsten Glaser]

Hello,

> packages.qa.d.o is deprecated and will eventually go away once
> tracker.d.o supports everything packages.qa.d.o does, so I don't think

that is very ouch. It looks completely different, and its UI
makes it hard to find things, I am very happy with p.qa.d.o.

To whom do I have to talk to revert this decision of it
“eventually going away”?

Thanks,
//mirabilos
-- 
tarent solutions GmbH
Rochusstraße 2-4, D-53123 Bonn • http://www.tarent.de/
Tel: +49 228 54881-393 • Fax: +49 228 54881-235
HRB 5168 (AG Bonn) • USt-ID (VAT): DE122264941
Geschäftsführer: Dr. Stefan Barth, Kai Ebenrett, Boris Esser, Alexander Steeg

Re: PTS link missing on packages.d.o

[Paul Wise]

On Wed, Apr 18, 2018 at 12:38 AM, Thorsten Glaser wrote:

> https://packages.debian.org/source/sid/libidn2 (for example)
> has a number of links on the right, e.g. “Bug Reports”,
> “Developer Information”, etc.
>
> There used to be a link to packages.qa.d.o/libi/libidn2.html
> there, which seems to have vanished.

It was replaced by the "Developer Information" link to tracker.d.o.

> Please re-add that link.

packages.qa.d.o is deprecated and will eventually go away once
tracker.d.o supports everything packages.qa.d.o does, so I don't think
we should re-add any links to it.

-- 
bye,
pabs

https://wiki.debian.org/PaulWise

PTS link missing on packages.d.o

[Thorsten Glaser]

Hi,

https://packages.debian.org/source/sid/libidn2 (for example)
has a number of links on the right, e.g. “Bug Reports”,
“Developer Information”, etc.

There used to be a link to packages.qa.d.o/libi/libidn2.html
there, which seems to have vanished.

Please re-add that link.

Thanks,
//mirabilos
-- 
tarent solutions GmbH
Rochusstraße 2-4, D-53123 Bonn • http://www.tarent.de/
Tel: +49 228 54881-393 • Fax: +49 228 54881-235
HRB 5168 (AG Bonn) • USt-ID (VAT): DE122264941
Geschäftsführer: Dr. Stefan Barth, Kai Ebenrett, Boris Esser, Alexander Steeg

Re: [PATCH] packages.d.o - Link about to team page

[Paul Wise]

On Mon, 2017-01-16 at 10:27 +0300, anatoly techtonik wrote:

> From https://anonscm.debian.org/cgit/webwml/packages.git/tree/INSTALL
> it looks like simple "git pull" should be enough to regenerate the
> content of static page.

I've done a few `git merge` operations and now the file on the packages
master host is correct. I managed to figure out how to build the static
HTML from the template (cron.d/700install_static) but it seems the
infrastructure to sync the static HTML files between the mirrors is
broken. I'm following up with the relevant DSA/mirror/pkg_maint folks.

-- 
bye,
pabs

https://wiki.debian.org/PaulWise


signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part

Re: [PATCH] packages.d.o - Link about to team page

[anatoly techtonik]

On Mon, Jan 16, 2017 at 5:49 AM, Paul Wise  wrote:
> On Mon, Jan 16, 2017 at 2:05 AM, anatoly techtonik wrote:
>
>> Subject: [PATCH] Link about to team page
>
> Applied to git master. Not sure how to deploy though.

>From https://anonscm.debian.org/cgit/webwml/packages.git/tree/INSTALL
it looks like simple "git pull" should be enough to regenerate the content
of static page. If that won't help, I'd restart Apache. If that won't
help too, I
would cache/ dir (ensuring that permissions won't go away).

Looks like the site doesn't contain and database, so reinstalling it from
scratch should work, but of course a separate section on updating could
be critical for the team maintenance.

-- 
anatoly t.

Re: [PATCH] packages.d.o - Link about to team page

[Paul Wise]

On Mon, Jan 16, 2017 at 2:05 AM, anatoly techtonik wrote:

> Subject: [PATCH] Link about to team page

Applied to git master. Not sure how to deploy though.

-- 
bye,
pabs

https://wiki.debian.org/PaulWise

[PATCH] packages.d.o - Link about to team page

[anatoly techtonik]

>From a9b7ddc98b2f6594cef0abb4f35f6e38cdf13684 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
From: anatoly techtonik 
Date: Sun, 15 Jan 2017 20:53:19 +0300
Subject: [PATCH] Link about to team page

This add tracker, list archives and IRC to communication channels
---
 static/about/index.tmpl | 3 ++-
 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)

diff --git a/static/about/index.tmpl b/static/about/index.tmpl
index 03451ad..8139721 100644
--- a/static/about/index.tmpl
+++ b/static/about/index.tmpl
@@ -8,7 +8,8 @@

 Getting

-The current code base is maintained by the Debian Website Team in
+The current code base is maintained by the
+https://wiki.debian.org/Teams/Webmaster;>Debian Website Team in
 https://git-scm.com/;>git and can be obtained from
 https://anonscm.debian.org/cgit/webwml/packages.git/;>https://anonscm.debian.org/cgit/webwml/packages.git/
 both over HTTPS and the native git protocol:

packages.d.o broken

[James Clarke]

Hi,
It seems packages.d.o is quite broken. 213.165.95.4 is fine, but 5.153.231.3 is
only aware of experimental binary packages, as can be seen in the following
screenshots:

https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/2042276/Screenshots/5badc42c3cf79b006dac55b23f7cb5462ed62cf4.png
https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/2042276/Screenshots/cbfea15c7209eb020707a7701f8663a3c335fdaa.png

Regards,
James



signature.asc
Description: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail

Bug#207095: last change date not on packages.d.o

[Tomas Pospisek]

Hello Dan,

in 2004 you wrote in a conversation with Thomas Hood:


packages.debian.org: should give date of last update

T
T There is now a link to the Debian changelog, the first
T entry of which gives the date on which the version was
T created (more or less).  Does this satisfy wish #207095
T well enough?


I didn't try it yet, but is sounds like one has to know to click on
the changelog to get the date.  Also one must then download a
potentially massive changelog for just a mere line of information.


Still feel the same way? I have the feeling like last change date is 
something so technical, that only a technically knowledgeable user will be 
looking for that information and for this kind of user it will not be 
terribly difficult to find and correctly interpret the ChangeLog link.


You are right about the potentially massive changelog, but times have 
changed since 2004 bandwidth-wise, so allthough still correct, I'm not 
sure how relevant that argument still is.


?

Maybe the info reachable through the current package info page is good 
enough and we can close the bug report?

*t


--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-www-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Archive: https://lists.debian.org/alpine.DEB.2.02.1411032128260.7276@hier

Bug#207095: last change date not on packages.d.o

[積丹尼 Dan Jacobson]

Probably the least bandwith using way to find the date currently is to
just check their directory entry in .../pool/...

But OK maybe date isn't important to some people, so I'll just respect
that, so you can close it if you like.

But even Google play store and Apple app store all have latest
version date info all with no more clicks needed to see.


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-www-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Archive: https://lists.debian.org/87tx2ggfn8@jidanni.org

Bug#735553: packages.debian.org: unreleased, debports architectures make packages.d.o confusing

[Stuart Prescott]

Package: www.debian.org
Severity: normal

Hi!

packages.debian.org lists packages from a variety of architectures that
aren't actually in Debian. packages.debian.org has three main audiences
who come to it to look for information:

* end-users -- they aren't using debports ports so they don't want to see
  this information

* debian develoeprs -- they are more likely to look at packages.qa.d.o for
  information about packages and porting

* debports porters -- they have much better tools than packages.d.o to
  assess their porting efforts

The current infrastructure sets up packages.d.o as being for end users
while packages.qa.d.o is for developers. Information about work-in-progress
architectures that aren't even available from the Debian project is at
best irrelevant to the end-user; unfortunately, is actively confusing in
many cases.

A FAQ in #debian has become (in infinte variants):

  Hi! I'm trying to install postgresql-9.0.
  packages.debian.org/sid/postgresql-9.0 lists it but apt can't find it.

  http://packages.debian.org/sid/tspc lists a binary package but no source,
  isn't Debian distributing the source?

Now if you look at these pages for long enough, you eventually find, down the
bottom in the last place you will look in the download links that there are
only download links for m68k. But because you know that Debian has a
sophisticated package management system and you always use apt to install
packages because that's what you've been trained to do, you don't even
look at download links and you remain confused...

The other common variation on this theme is where a package has been removed
from Debian but has not been decrufted from debports yet. Even for those
not confused by the stray entries for packages that don't exist any more,
these entries are effectively noise that makes the site less useful.

If the work-in-progress, dead, being-revived or otherwise progressing well
ports from debports were keeping up with all packages in the archive,
this wouldn't be a problem but then again, if these ports were keeping up,
they could be official ports in any case.

Concretely, my suggestion is:

(a) remove architectures from packages.d.o that are not official Debian
architectures. not in dak, not looked after by our ftp-masters, not
considered in architecture qualification by the release team, not
available from ftp.d.o would all be reasonable definitions of official
Debian architectures here (and give the same set of architectures).

(b) if those working on debports architectures need Debian maintainers to see
information about the status of the packages and would thus be sorry to
see this information disappear from view, then let's clone this bug to
qa.debian.org proposing to include it in the packages.qa.d.o pages where
the developer group is more likely to look for it anyway.

It would be nice if this FAQ didn't need to be answered on a ~daily basis
and if packages.d.o could become more useful to end-users.

thanks
Stuart


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-www-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Archive: 
http://lists.debian.org/20140116123321.1293.90738.report...@jatayu.nanonanonano.net

Re: Support for oldstable should be reenabled on packages.d.o.

[Damyan Ivanov]

-=| Moritz Muehlenhoff, 10.05.2013 18:45:03 +0200 |=-
 now that wheezy is released, support for searching in oldstable 
 needs to be activated on packages.debian.org again.

Done. Will be online after next website rebuild.


signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Support for oldstable should be reenabled on packages.d.o.

[Moritz Muehlenhoff]

Hi,
now that wheezy is released, support for searching in oldstable needs to be
activated on packages.debian.org again.

Cheers,
Moritz


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-www-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Archive: http://lists.debian.org/20130510164503.ga16...@inutil.org

Re: packages.d.o: changelogs and ftp-master.metadata.d.o

[Ansgar Burchardt]

On 05/01/2013 23:41, Simon Paillard wrote:
 -- On dak side, is it possible to extract metadata for binary packages, under
 $src/$binary_pkg/$version/changelog ?

Changelogs can differ between architectures so this would have to
include the architecture name as well. If we allow : we could use
  $src/$binary:$arch/$version/changelog
This looks similar to apt-get install foo:i386.

Or one could ignore differences, but you would get the wrong changelog
when packages get binNMUed only on a subset of architectures.

Ansgar


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-www-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Archive: http://lists.debian.org/51821368.2060...@debian.org

packages.d.o: changelogs and ftp-master.metadata.d.o

[Simon Paillard]

Hi,

I've updated packages.d.o to link to the current url scheme used by
ftp-master.metadata.d.o, however there are some raising questions and issues.

Providing metadata for binary packages
==

Perl packages.d.o used to extract and link to per binary packages *copyright* 
file.

It was however not done for *changelog* (hence the reason for broken changelog
on binNMU, see #422074).

On the other side, ftp-metadata.d.o does provide only per source package
metadata.

So for the moment, I've modified packages.d.o to always link to source
metadata.

However, both source and binary packages metadata should be provided, so that
we spot binNMU changelog, or per binary package copyright file.

  | packages.d.o | ftp metadata | ideal |
src:copyright |done  |done  |   X   |
src:changelog |done  |done  |   X   |
bin:copyright |done  |N/A   |   X   |
bin:changelog |N/A   |N/A   |   X   |

-- On dak side, is it possible to extract metadata for binary packages, under
$src/$binary_pkg/$version/changelog ?


(stable ?) URL scheme
=

Given the url scheme has been the same for I would say 10 years at least, and
that some programs like aptitude downloads from packages.d.o, IMO, we should
guarantee a redirect from packages.d.o current url (not done yet).

Questions now:
* transparent proxy, permanent or permanent redirect, should
  ftp-master.metadata appear to user ?
* maybe fit metadata url scheme to the one used previously by packages.d.o ?
  (see url difference below ?) It will ease update of programs that used to
  download changelogs from PDO.

(Non working ATM) packages.d.o URL
http://packages.debian.org/changelogs/pool/main/v/vim/vim_7.3.547-7/changelog

ftp-master URL
http://ftp-master.metadata.debian.org/changelogs//main/v/vim/vim_7.3.547-7_changelog

-- On dak side, is it possible to fit to the historical URL scheme ? (Please
coordinate for the change)

HTML format
===

Packages.d.o used to provide html-ised changelogs, with anchors to specific
versions, based on libparse-debianchangelog-perl.
As keeping packages.d.o generating the html would not be very logical, some
python code will need to be written for that.


-- 
Simon Paillard


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-www-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Archive: http://lists.debian.org/20130501214132.gd19...@glenfiddich.mraw.org

Re: packages.d.o: changelogs and ftp-master.metadata.d.o

[Joerg Jaspert]

On 13198 March 1977, Simon Paillard wrote:

 -- On dak side, is it possible to extract metadata for binary packages, under
 $src/$binary_pkg/$version/changelog ?

Should be.

 Questions now:
 * transparent proxy, permanent or permanent redirect, should
   ftp-master.metadata appear to user ?

apache, permanent redirect, should be best.

 * maybe fit metadata url scheme to the one used previously by packages.d.o ?
   (see url difference below ?) It will ease update of programs that used to
   download changelogs from PDO.

Don't see why?

 (Non working ATM) packages.d.o URL
 http://packages.debian.org/changelogs/pool/main/v/vim/vim_7.3.547-7/changelog
 ftp-master URL
 http://ftp-master.metadata.debian.org/changelogs//main/v/vim/vim_7.3.547-7_changelog

 -- On dak side, is it possible to fit to the historical URL scheme ? (Please
 coordinate for the change)

We could, but what do we gain?  pdo can get a apache redirect (I look
into that later), then users don't care.  Tools should use the
filelist.yaml we provide to find files (and as such links) for their
usage / if they want to verify they are there before setting a link.

 HTML format
 ===
 Packages.d.o used to provide html-ised changelogs, with anchors to specific
 versions, based on libparse-debianchangelog-perl.
 As keeping packages.d.o generating the html would not be very logical, some
 python code will need to be written for that.

Thats on todo for us already, yes. Should appear additionally besides
the existing files.
If someone else wants to look, in dak.git its dak/make_changelog.py


-- 
bye, Joerg
* libpng2 no libpng3 no why ? because no yes no yes no yes bullshit no yes
  no yes no yes stop ? no when someday beep beep beep beep (Closes: #157011)
 -- Christian Marillat maril...@debian.org  Thu, 29 Aug 2002 16:41:58 +0200


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-www-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Archive: http://lists.debian.org/87fvy6osyp@gkar.ganneff.de

additional entries in Sources index (may affect UDD, PTS, packages.d.o)

[Ansgar Burchardt]

Hi,

I plan to add source packages that are only referenced via Built-Using
to the Sources indices[1] so we include them on source CD images and
mirrors maintained with debmirror.

It might be useful to ignore these new packages and not show them on the
PTS, in UDD (rmadison) or packages.d.o. Most of them should be older
versions of source packages in a given suite, but it can also happen
that newer versions or additional packages show up.

The additional entries can be identified by a Extra-Source-Only: yes
field in the Sources index.

Ansgar

  [1] http://bugs.debian.org/657212


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-www-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Archive: http://lists.debian.org/50f01104.4040...@debian.org

Re: broken links: packages.d.o + patch-tracker.d.o

[Simon Paillard]

Hi,

(please be specific in your subject)

On Mon, Jun 04, 2012 at 09:59:50AM +0200, Kiss Gabor (Bitman) wrote:
 On page http://packages.debian.org/squeeze/nut
 the following links of Debian Resources section are broken:
 
 Debian Changelog, Copyright File

They are ok now, but that's surprising I remember changelog/copyrights are
extracted first.

 and Debian Patch Tracker.
 (Sorry if I am too impatient... :)

Patch tracker being outdated is a different problem, for which sean (in CC) can
help.

-- 
Simon Paillard


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-www-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Archive: http://lists.debian.org/20120605075626.gu17...@glenfiddich.mraw.org

Re: broken links: packages.d.o + patch-tracker.d.o

[Gerfried Fuchs]

* Simon Paillard spaill...@debian.org [2012-06-05 09:56:26 CEST]:
 Hi,
 
 (please be specific in your subject)
 
 On Mon, Jun 04, 2012 at 09:59:50AM +0200, Kiss Gabor (Bitman) wrote:
  On page http://packages.debian.org/squeeze/nut
  the following links of Debian Resources section are broken:
  
  Debian Changelog, Copyright File
 
 They are ok now, but that's surprising I remember changelog/copyrights are
 extracted first.

 What's surprising to me is that this was a security upload and I wonder
how it got extracted?  Someone fixed that?  If so, why don't we use the
same magic for backports?

 About the patch tracker, I would guess it just doesn't know about
security uploads?

 Thanks,
Rhonda
-- 
Fühlst du dich mutlos, fass endlich Mut, los  |
Fühlst du dich hilflos, geh raus und hilf, los| Wir sind Helden
Fühlst du dich machtlos, geh raus und mach, los   | 23.55: Alles auf Anfang
Fühlst du dich haltlos, such Halt und lass los|


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-www-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Archive: http://lists.debian.org/20120605080935.ga6...@anguilla.debian.or.at

Re: broken links: packages.d.o + patch-tracker.d.o

[Simon Paillard]

On Tue, Jun 05, 2012 at 10:09:35AM +0200, Gerfried Fuchs wrote:
 * Simon Paillard spaill...@debian.org [2012-06-05 09:56:26 CEST]:
  On Mon, Jun 04, 2012 at 09:59:50AM +0200, Kiss Gabor (Bitman) wrote:
   On page http://packages.debian.org/squeeze/nut
   the following links of Debian Resources section are broken:
   
   Debian Changelog, Copyright File
  
  They are ok now, but that's surprising I remember changelog/copyrights are
  extracted first.
 
  What's surprising to me is that this was a security upload and I wonder
 how it got extracted?  Someone fixed that?  If so, why don't we use the
 same magic for backports?

Because it has been uploaded to stable-proposed-updates:
http://ftp2.fr.debian.org/debian/dists/stable-proposed-updates/nut_2.4.3-1.1squeeze2_i386.changes

  About the patch tracker, I would guess it just doesn't know about
 security uploads?
 

-- 
Simon Paillard


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-www-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Archive: http://lists.debian.org/20120605143701.gb16...@glenfiddich.mraw.org

Re: broken links: packages.d.o + patch-tracker.d.o

[Gerfried Fuchs]

* Simon Paillard spaill...@debian.org [2012-06-05 16:37:01 CEST]:
 On Tue, Jun 05, 2012 at 10:09:35AM +0200, Gerfried Fuchs wrote:
  * Simon Paillard spaill...@debian.org [2012-06-05 09:56:26 CEST]:
   On Mon, Jun 04, 2012 at 09:59:50AM +0200, Kiss Gabor (Bitman) wrote:
On page http://packages.debian.org/squeeze/nut
the following links of Debian Resources section are broken:

Debian Changelog, Copyright File
   
   They are ok now, but that's surprising I remember changelog/copyrights are
   extracted first.
  
   What's surprising to me is that this was a security upload and I wonder
  how it got extracted?  Someone fixed that?  If so, why don't we use the
  same magic for backports?
 
 Because it has been uploaded to stable-proposed-updates:
 http://ftp2.fr.debian.org/debian/dists/stable-proposed-updates/nut_2.4.3-1.1squeeze2_i386.changes

 Ah, cool.  So I would assume the missing changelog issue for security
uploads sort-of fixed itself because of that workflow.  Nice to know!
(rmadison doesn't seem to know about s-p-u)

 Enjoy,
Rhonda
-- 
Fühlst du dich mutlos, fass endlich Mut, los  |
Fühlst du dich hilflos, geh raus und hilf, los| Wir sind Helden
Fühlst du dich machtlos, geh raus und mach, los   | 23.55: Alles auf Anfang
Fühlst du dich haltlos, such Halt und lass los|


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-www-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Archive: http://lists.debian.org/20120605144058.ga15...@anguilla.debian.or.at

Re: broken links: packages.d.o + patch-tracker.d.o

[Simon Paillard]

On Tue, Jun 05, 2012 at 04:40:58PM +0200, Gerfried Fuchs wrote:
 * Simon Paillard spaill...@debian.org [2012-06-05 16:37:01 CEST]:
  On Tue, Jun 05, 2012 at 10:09:35AM +0200, Gerfried Fuchs wrote:
   * Simon Paillard spaill...@debian.org [2012-06-05 09:56:26 CEST]:
On Mon, Jun 04, 2012 at 09:59:50AM +0200, Kiss Gabor (Bitman) wrote:
 On page http://packages.debian.org/squeeze/nut
 the following links of Debian Resources section are broken:
 
 Debian Changelog, Copyright File

They are ok now, but that's surprising I remember changelog/copyrights 
are
extracted first.
   
What's surprising to me is that this was a security upload and I wonder
   how it got extracted?  Someone fixed that?  If so, why don't we use the
   same magic for backports?
  
  Because it has been uploaded to stable-proposed-updates:
  http://ftp2.fr.debian.org/debian/dists/stable-proposed-updates/nut_2.4.3-1.1squeeze2_i386.changes
 
  Ah, cool.  So I would assume the missing changelog issue for security
 uploads sort-of fixed itself because of that workflow.  Nice to know!
 (rmadison doesn't seem to know about s-p-u)

That means packages.d.o uses the changelog instead of the mirror it cames from..

-- 
Simon Paillard


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-www-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Archive: http://lists.debian.org/20120605144316.gc16...@glenfiddich.mraw.org

Re: Link to changelogs broken on packages.d.o

[Thilo Six]

Thilo Six wrote the following on 30.12.2011 22:20

 Hello
 
 e.g. on http://packages.debian.org/sid/putty
 
 the link 'Debian-Changelog' links to:
 http://packages.debian.org/changelogs/pool/main/p/putty/putty_0.62-1/changelog
 and gives a 'Not Found'
 
 The link from inside the pts actually works and points to:
 http://packages.debian.org/changelogs/pool/main/p/putty/current/changelog
 
 Can you please fix this in packages.d.o?
 
 Thank you.


An other mystery:
Currently vim is at version '2:7.3.363-1' in unstable but the last entry on
http://packages.debian.org/changelogs/pool/main/v/vim/current/changelog

is from '2:7.3.333-1'.

-- 
Regards,
Thilo

4096R/0xC70B1A8F
721B 1BA0 095C 1ABA 3FC6  7C18 89A4 A2A0 C70B 1A8F



-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-www-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Archive: http://lists.debian.org/jdladh$th$1...@dough.gmane.org

Irritating error message when searching for squeeze backports kernel on packages.d.o

[Axel Beckert]

Hi,

while the following URLs yield the expected results (Squeeze 2.6
Kernels, Squeeze Backports 2.6.38 kernels)

http://packages.debian.org/search?suite=squeezearch=i386searchon=nameskeywords=linux-image-2.6
http://packages.debian.org/search?suite=squeeze-backportsarch=i386searchon=nameskeywords=linux-image-2.6.38

the following one (Squeeze Backports 2.6 kernels) does not:

http://packages.debian.org/search?suite=squeeze-backportsarch=i386searchon=nameskeywords=linux-image-2.6

The warning on the first and last URL (Your keyword was too
generic. Please consider using a longer keyword or more keywords.)
is the same, but the last URL shows now result at all (instead of just
the first few hits) while the first URL does and the second URL shows
that the kernels I looked for do exist.

Any idea why Squeeze and Squeeze Backports seem to be handled
differently in package search?

Regards, Axel
-- 
 ,''`.  |  Axel Beckert a...@debian.org, http://people.debian.org/~abe/
: :' :  |  Debian Developer, ftp.ch.debian.org Admin
`. `'   |  1024D: F067 EA27 26B9 C3FC 1486  202E C09E 1D89 9593 0EDE
  `-|  4096R: 2517 B724 C5F6 CA99 5329  6E61 2FF9 CD59 6126 16B5


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-www-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Archive: http://lists.debian.org/20110706115747.gd14...@phys.ethz.ch

Re: copyright and changelog files not yet on packages.d.o

[Simon Paillard]

On Wed, Apr 13, 2011 at 10:30:21PM +0200, Francesco Poli wrote:
 On Mon, 28 Mar 2011 19:29:53 +0200 Francesco Poli wrote:
  version 0.1.4 of package apt-listbugs was uploaded to unstable on last
  Saturday, and it's correctly shown at
  http://packages.debian.org/sid/apt-listbugs
  
  However, links to its copyright and changelog files seem to be still
  missing:
  http://packages.debian.org/changelogs/pool/main/a/apt-listbugs/apt-listbugs_0.1.4/changelog
  http://packages.debian.org/changelogs/pool/main/a/apt-listbugs/apt-listbugs_0.1.4/apt-listbugs.copyright
  both lead to a 404 error.

This is now ok, we had a database corruption that prevented the update of
packages.debian.org pages to happen.


-- 
Simon Paillard


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-www-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Archive: http://lists.debian.org/20110419070701.gb...@glenfiddich.ikibiki.org

Re: copyright and changelog files not yet on packages.d.o

[Francesco Poli]

On Tue, 19 Apr 2011 09:07:01 +0200 Simon Paillard wrote:

[...]
  On Mon, 28 Mar 2011 19:29:53 +0200 Francesco Poli wrote:
[...]
   http://packages.debian.org/changelogs/pool/main/a/apt-listbugs/apt-listbugs_0.1.4/changelog
   http://packages.debian.org/changelogs/pool/main/a/apt-listbugs/apt-listbugs_0.1.4/apt-listbugs.copyright
   both lead to a 404 error.
 
 This is now ok, we had a database corruption that prevented the update of
 packages.debian.org pages to happen.

Good, thanks a lot!

Bye.

-- 
 http://www.inventati.org/frx/frx-gpg-key-transition-2010.txt
 New GnuPG key, see the transition document!
. Francesco Poli .
 GnuPG key fpr == CA01 1147 9CD2 EFDF FB82  3925 3E1C 27E1 1F69 BFFE


pgplDJzNfgku9.pgp
Description: PGP signature

Re: copyright and changelog files not yet on packages.d.o

[Francesco Poli]

On Mon, 28 Mar 2011 19:29:53 +0200 Francesco Poli wrote:

 Hi all,
 version 0.1.4 of package apt-listbugs was uploaded to unstable on last
 Saturday, and it's correctly shown at
 http://packages.debian.org/sid/apt-listbugs
 
 However, links to its copyright and changelog files seem to be still
 missing:
 http://packages.debian.org/changelogs/pool/main/a/apt-listbugs/apt-listbugs_0.1.4/changelog
 http://packages.debian.org/changelogs/pool/main/a/apt-listbugs/apt-listbugs_0.1.4/apt-listbugs.copyright
 both lead to a 404 error.
 
 I cannot understand why.
 Could someone please explain?
 Who should I get in touch with about this issue?

Those URLs still 404.
Could someone please help?

Thanks for your time.


P.S.: Please Cc: me on replies, since I am not subscribed to the list,
  thanks in advance!


-- 
 http://www.inventati.org/frx/frx-gpg-key-transition-2010.txt
 New GnuPG key, see the transition document!
. Francesco Poli .
 GnuPG key fpr == CA01 1147 9CD2 EFDF FB82  3925 3E1C 27E1 1F69 BFFE


pgpR0sdtINJ43.pgp
Description: PGP signature

Bug#599425: packages.d.o: do not say 200 OK on errors

[Simon Paillard]

tags 599425 +patch
thanks

Hi,

On Thu, Oct 07, 2010 at 04:49:08PM +0200, Peter Palfrader wrote:
 Package: www.debian.org
 Severity: normal
 
 packages.d.o (and archive.d.n) say 200 OK even on errors.
 
 e.g.:
 | weasel@intrepid:~$ wget -S  
 http://packages.debian.org/debian-volatile/dists/etch/volatile/main/source/Sources.bz2
 | --2010-10-07 16:48:10--  
 http://packages.debian.org/debian-volatile/dists/etch/volatile/main/source/Sources.bz2
 | Resolving packages.debian.org... 194.177.211.202, 87.106.64.223, 
 128.31.0.49, ...
 | Connecting to packages.debian.org|194.177.211.202|:80... connected.
 | HTTP request sent, awaiting response... 
 |   HTTP/1.1 200 OK
 | ^^
 |   Date: Thu, 07 Oct 2010 14:48:11 GMT
 |   Server: Apache
 
 The document itself then says 'titleDebian -- Error/title' but that's not
 really enough.

Such cases are actually planned by current code, but were not used.

However with the working patch attached (using something else than default
200):
- it leads the message error to be bare apache styled, so the only solution to
  that would be apache configuration (including l10n) using static files built
from templates.
- the message error itself is my default the default apache one, unless
  specifed otherwise: either we can do it by default in fatal_error function,
  or at each call (more conservative solution).

-- 
Simon Paillard
From 54ec14a940dd27f0e4506d8c43c6939aaae47d37 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
From: Simon Paillard spaill...@debian.org
Date: Sun, 27 Mar 2011 21:42:26 +0200
Subject: [PATCH] Call fatal_error with relevant HTTP error code (Closes: #599425)

---
 lib/Packages/Dispatcher.pm |6 +++---
 1 files changed, 3 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)

diff --git a/lib/Packages/Dispatcher.pm b/lib/Packages/Dispatcher.pm
index 08c6f96..24cf622 100755
--- a/lib/Packages/Dispatcher.pm
+++ b/lib/Packages/Dispatcher.pm
@@ -172,7 +172,7 @@ sub do_dispatch {
 	shift @components;
 	$what_to_do = 'search';
 	# Done
-	fatal_error( search doesn't take any more path elements )
+	fatal_error( search doesn't take any more path elements , 400 )
 		if @components;
 	} elsif (@components == 0) {
 	fatal_error( We're supposed to display the homepage here, instead of getting dispatch.pl );
@@ -202,7 +202,7 @@ sub do_dispatch {
 		my ($cgi, $params_set, $key, $val) = @_;
 		debug(set_param_once key=$key val=$val,4) if DEBUG;
 		if ($params_set-{$key}++) {
-		fatal_error( $key set more than once in path );
+		fatal_error( $key set more than once in path , 400 );
 		} else {
 		$cgi-param( $key, $val );
 		}
@@ -237,7 +237,7 @@ sub do_dispatch {
 	@components = @pkg;
 
 	if (@components  1) {
-		fatal_error( two or more packages specified (@components) );
+		fatal_error( two or more packages specified (@components) , 400 );
 	}
 	} # else if (@components == 1)
 
-- 
1.7.2.5

Processed: Re: Bug#599425: packages.d.o: do not say 200 OK on errors

[Debian Bug Tracking System]

Processing commands for cont...@bugs.debian.org:

 tags 599425 +patch
Bug #599425 [www.debian.org] packages.d.o: do not say 200 OK on errors
Added tag(s) patch.
 thanks
Stopping processing here.

Please contact me if you need assistance.
-- 
599425: http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=599425
Debian Bug Tracking System
Contact ow...@bugs.debian.org with problems


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-www-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Archive: 
http://lists.debian.org/handler.s.c.13012577333911.transcr...@bugs.debian.org

Bug#614111: marked as done (packages.d.o: theme regression: table of binpkgs by architecture (colours, layout))

[Debian Bug Tracking System]

Your message dated Mon, 7 Mar 2011 21:16:02 +0100
with message-id 20110307201602.GA13390@violet
and subject line Re: Bug#614111: packages.d.o: theme regression: table of 
binpkgs by architecture (colours, layout)
has caused the Debian Bug report #614111,
regarding packages.d.o: theme regression: table of binpkgs by architecture 
(colours, layout)
to be marked as done.

This means that you claim that the problem has been dealt with.
If this is not the case it is now your responsibility to reopen the
Bug report if necessary, and/or fix the problem forthwith.

(NB: If you are a system administrator and have no idea what this
message is talking about, this may indicate a serious mail system
misconfiguration somewhere. Please contact ow...@bugs.debian.org
immediately.)


-- 
614111: http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=614111
Debian Bug Tracking System
Contact ow...@bugs.debian.org with problems
---BeginMessage---
Package: www.debian.org
Severity: normal

I noticed a regression (actually two) in the list of binary pak-
kages per architecture, for example on this page:
‣ http://packages.debian.org/sid/kdelibs5-dev

It looks like this in Lynx (good):

 Debian -- Details of 
package kdelibs5-dev in sid (p16 of 17)
   CAPTION: Download for all available architectures

 Architecture  VersionPackage Size Installed Size   
  Files
  [193]amd64 4:4.4.5-31,791.6 kB   8676 kB
[[194]list of files]
  [195]armel 4:4.4.5-31,825.7 kB   13596 kB   
[[196]list of files]
[197]hurd-i386   4:4.4.5-31,774.8 kB   13588 kB   
[[198]list of files]
   [199]i386 4:4.4.5-31,830.4 kB   13612 kB   
[[200]list of files]
   [201]ia64 4:4.4.5-31,842.4 kB   34032 kB   
[[202]list of files]
  [203]kfreebsd-amd644:4.4.5-3+b1 1,835.8 kB   10750 kB   
[[204]list of files]
  [205]kfreebsd-i386 4:4.4.5-3+b1 1,829.7 kB   10670 kB   
[[206]list of files]
  [207]m68k (unofficial port)4:4.2.2-21,555.8 kB   12020 kB   
[[208]list of files]
   [209]mips 4:4.4.5-31,839.5 kB   13776 kB   
[[210]list of files]
  [211]mipsel4:4.4.5-31,832.4 kB   13776 kB   
[[212]list of files]
 [213]powerpc4:4.4.5-31,837.4 kB   13664 kB   
[[214]list of files]
   [215]powerpcspe (unofficial port) 4:4.4.5-11,832.0 kB   13640 kB   
[[216]list of files]
   [217]s390 4:4.4.5-31,795.4 kB   13664 kB   
[[218]list of files]
  [219]sh4 (unofficial port) 4:4.4.5-31,843.4 kB   13636 kB   
[[220]list of files]
  [221]sparc 4:4.4.5-31,835.1 kB   13644 kB   
[[222]list of files]
[223]sparc64 (unofficial port)   4:4.4.5-31,840.4 kB   13724 kB   
[[224]list of files]
 
___

   This page is also available in the following languages (How to set [225]the 
default document language):
   [226]Български  (Bəlgarski)  [227]Deutsch  [228]suomi  [229]français  
[230]magyar  [231]日本語 (Nihongo)
   [232]Nederlands [233]Русский (Russkij) [234]slovensky [235]svenska 
[236]українська (ukrajins'ka) [237]中文
   (Zhongwen,简) [238]中文 (Zhongwen,繁)
 
___

As for colours (in Lynx): architecture names are green,
(unofficial port) is red, 4:4.4.5-1 and 4:4.2.2-2
are white (old/outdated versions, no distinction between
older Debian release and older upstream version but that
never was, in Lynx) and 4:4.4.5-3 and 4:4.4.5-3+b1
are blue (version OK, including binNMU – no regression).

But in Opera (9.27 qt3-static i386-linux on MirBSD) there
are line breaks in (unofficial\nport) and list of\nfiles
which makes the entire subtable double-spaced. Furthermore,
all version fields are no longer colourised (in fact, the
entire table is black (links blue/underlined) on white).
This *is* a regression.

Judging from the fact that it looks the same as before the
Theme change in Lynx (good) I’d guess that, for the colours,
some CSS is missing, and for the line breaks, the subtable
width is limited (its width in Opera is about 70% of the
screen width of 1024px, and it shrinks with the browser
window, so this is probably a CSS problem as well).


-- System Information:
Debian Release: wheezy/sid
Architecture: m68k

Kernel: Linux 2.6.32-5+m68k.5-atari
Locale: LANG=C, LC_CTYPE=en_GB.UTF-8 (charmap=UTF-8)
Shell: /bin/sh linked to /bin/mksh-static


---End Message---
---BeginMessage---
Hi!

On Sat, Feb 19, 2011 at 08:10:04PM +, Thorsten Glaser wrote:
 I noticed a regression (actually two) in the list of binary pak-
 kages per

Bug#614111: packages.d.o: theme regression: table of binpkgs by architecture (colours, layout)

[Thorsten Glaser]

Package: www.debian.org
Severity: normal

I noticed a regression (actually two) in the list of binary pak-
kages per architecture, for example on this page:
‣ http://packages.debian.org/sid/kdelibs5-dev

It looks like this in Lynx (good):

 Debian -- Details of 
package kdelibs5-dev in sid (p16 of 17)
   CAPTION: Download for all available architectures

 Architecture  VersionPackage Size Installed Size   
  Files
  [193]amd64 4:4.4.5-31,791.6 kB   8676 kB
[[194]list of files]
  [195]armel 4:4.4.5-31,825.7 kB   13596 kB   
[[196]list of files]
[197]hurd-i386   4:4.4.5-31,774.8 kB   13588 kB   
[[198]list of files]
   [199]i386 4:4.4.5-31,830.4 kB   13612 kB   
[[200]list of files]
   [201]ia64 4:4.4.5-31,842.4 kB   34032 kB   
[[202]list of files]
  [203]kfreebsd-amd644:4.4.5-3+b1 1,835.8 kB   10750 kB   
[[204]list of files]
  [205]kfreebsd-i386 4:4.4.5-3+b1 1,829.7 kB   10670 kB   
[[206]list of files]
  [207]m68k (unofficial port)4:4.2.2-21,555.8 kB   12020 kB   
[[208]list of files]
   [209]mips 4:4.4.5-31,839.5 kB   13776 kB   
[[210]list of files]
  [211]mipsel4:4.4.5-31,832.4 kB   13776 kB   
[[212]list of files]
 [213]powerpc4:4.4.5-31,837.4 kB   13664 kB   
[[214]list of files]
   [215]powerpcspe (unofficial port) 4:4.4.5-11,832.0 kB   13640 kB   
[[216]list of files]
   [217]s390 4:4.4.5-31,795.4 kB   13664 kB   
[[218]list of files]
  [219]sh4 (unofficial port) 4:4.4.5-31,843.4 kB   13636 kB   
[[220]list of files]
  [221]sparc 4:4.4.5-31,835.1 kB   13644 kB   
[[222]list of files]
[223]sparc64 (unofficial port)   4:4.4.5-31,840.4 kB   13724 kB   
[[224]list of files]
 
___

   This page is also available in the following languages (How to set [225]the 
default document language):
   [226]Български  (Bəlgarski)  [227]Deutsch  [228]suomi  [229]français  
[230]magyar  [231]日本語 (Nihongo)
   [232]Nederlands [233]Русский (Russkij) [234]slovensky [235]svenska 
[236]українська (ukrajins'ka) [237]中文
   (Zhongwen,简) [238]中文 (Zhongwen,繁)
 
___

As for colours (in Lynx): architecture names are green,
(unofficial port) is red, 4:4.4.5-1 and 4:4.2.2-2
are white (old/outdated versions, no distinction between
older Debian release and older upstream version but that
never was, in Lynx) and 4:4.4.5-3 and 4:4.4.5-3+b1
are blue (version OK, including binNMU – no regression).

But in Opera (9.27 qt3-static i386-linux on MirBSD) there
are line breaks in (unofficial\nport) and list of\nfiles
which makes the entire subtable double-spaced. Furthermore,
all version fields are no longer colourised (in fact, the
entire table is black (links blue/underlined) on white).
This *is* a regression.

Judging from the fact that it looks the same as before the
Theme change in Lynx (good) I’d guess that, for the colours,
some CSS is missing, and for the line breaks, the subtable
width is limited (its width in Opera is about 70% of the
screen width of 1024px, and it shrinks with the browser
window, so this is probably a CSS problem as well).


-- System Information:
Debian Release: wheezy/sid
Architecture: m68k

Kernel: Linux 2.6.32-5+m68k.5-atari
Locale: LANG=C, LC_CTYPE=en_GB.UTF-8 (charmap=UTF-8)
Shell: /bin/sh linked to /bin/mksh-static



-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-www-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Archive: 
http://lists.debian.org/20110219201004.7376.85103.report...@ara2.mirbsd.org

Bug#613821: packages.d.o: Similar package link should not leave suite

[Joachim Breitner]

Package: www.debian.org
Severity: minor

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1

Hi,

the links to related packages unter “Similar packages” lead to the
search result page listing occurences of the similar packages in all
suites. I would find it more natural and convenient if it would go to
that package’s page of the current suit (if available there). I
sometimes browser around using these links, and having to klick on
“unstable” over and over again seems to be avoidable.

Greetings,
Joachim


- -- System Information:
Debian Release: 6.0
  APT prefers unstable
  APT policy: (500, 'unstable'), (101, 'experimental')
Architecture: amd64 (x86_64)

Kernel: Linux 2.6.36-trunk-amd64 (SMP w/2 CPU cores)
Locale: LANG=de_DE.UTF-8, LC_CTYPE=de_DE.UTF-8 (charmap=UTF-8)
Shell: /bin/sh linked to /bin/dash

-BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-
Version: GnuPG v1.4.10 (GNU/Linux)

iEYEARECAAYFAk1dKKkACgkQ9ijrk0dDIGyukACg0IqOXajlZbIWZIhUv99bSkUD
HbAAnRmgXc7lgQX4mM2agGZA3AA6zn4Z
=zom2
-END PGP SIGNATURE-



-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-www-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Archive: 
http://lists.debian.org/20110217135449.1164.66746.reportbug@ip6-localhost

Bug#600200: marked as done (packages.d.o: switch to API providing versioned screenshots)

[Debian Bug Tracking System]

Your message dated Tue, 9 Nov 2010 20:44:06 +0100
with message-id 20101109194406.ga32...@edna.deb.at
and subject line Re: Bug#600200: packages.d.o: switch to API providing 
versioned screenshots
has caused the Debian Bug report #600200,
regarding packages.d.o: switch to API providing versioned screenshots
to be marked as done.

This means that you claim that the problem has been dealt with.
If this is not the case it is now your responsibility to reopen the
Bug report if necessary, and/or fix the problem forthwith.

(NB: If you are a system administrator and have no idea what this
message is talking about, this may indicate a serious mail system
misconfiguration somewhere. Please contact ow...@bugs.debian.org
immediately.)


-- 
600200: http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=600200
Debian Bug Tracking System
Contact ow...@bugs.debian.org with problems
---BeginMessage---
Package: www.debian.org
Severity: wishlist
Tags: patch
X-Debbugs-CC: Christoph Haas h...@debian.org

The attached (untested) patch switches packages.d.o to the API that
provides versioned screenshots. If the requested version does not exist
it goes with the closest lower version. If no lower version exists it
goes with the closest higher version. So we avoid showing features that
a newer version would have. Please apply.

-- 
bye,
pabs

http://wiki.debian.org/PaulWise
From 00f2ab8d29bcc25f764c48ea0641225bf23beed2 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
From: Paul Wise p...@debian.org
Date: Thu, 14 Oct 2010 23:17:14 +0800
Subject: [PATCH] Use versioned screenshots on binary package pages

---
 templates/config.tmpl|2 +-
 templates/html/show.tmpl |2 +-
 2 files changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)

diff --git a/templates/config.tmpl b/templates/config.tmpl
index aa1dee5..4d24e05 100644
--- a/templates/config.tmpl
+++ b/templates/config.tmpl
@@ -24,7 +24,7 @@
cn_help_url = project_homepage _ 'intro/cn'
patch_tracking_url = 'http://patch-tracker.debian.org/package'
screenshots_url = 'http://screenshots.debian.net/package/'
-   screenshots_thumb_url = 'http://screenshots.debian.net/thumbnail/'
+   screenshots_thumb_url = 'http://screenshots.debian.net/thumbnail-with-version/'
logo = {
 	url = project_homepage,
 src = '/Pics/openlogo-nd-25.png',
diff --git a/templates/html/show.tmpl b/templates/html/show.tmpl
index e86af33..ebbba77 100644
--- a/templates/html/show.tmpl
+++ b/templates/html/show.tmpl
@@ -64,7 +64,7 @@
 div id=pmoreinfo
 h2[% g('Links for %s', pkg) %]/h2
 [% IF screenshots_url  screenshots_thumb_url  !is_source %]
-a id=screenshot href=[% screenshots_url _ pkg %]img src=[% screenshots_thumb_url _ pkg %] alt=Screenshot border=0//a
+a id=screenshot href=[% screenshots_url _ pkg %]img src=[% $screenshots_thumb_url/$pkg/$version %] alt=Screenshot border=0//a
 [% END %]
 h3[% g('%s Resources:', organisation) %]/h3
 ul
-- 
1.7.1



signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
---End Message---
---BeginMessage---
Hi!

* Paul Wise p...@debian.org [2010-10-14 17:24:44 CEST]:
 The attached (untested) patch switches packages.d.o to the API that
 provides versioned screenshots. If the requested version does not exist
 it goes with the closest lower version. If no lower version exists it
 goes with the closest higher version. So we avoid showing features that
 a newer version would have. Please apply.

 There is only one minor issue with the patch, it resulted in an URL
containing // - we might clean that up later but I didn't feel like
changing your commit right now, it works with that.

 Applied.
Rhonda

---End Message---

ftp.LT.d.o submission to packages.d.o

[Arnoldas Šareckis]

Hello dear debian-www team!

We at ftp.LT.d.o would like to submit the mirror to
'packages.debian.org' package search and download pages. We strongly
feel that our mirror, when included in the list, will help local and
nearby users to locate and download required packages more quickly.


The mirror has got all arches mirrored and is being pushed by
ftp.DE.d.o.


If you need any more information, please feel free to contact me.

Thanks.


Best regards,

Arnoldas Sareckis
Vilnius University 



-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-www-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Archive: http://lists.debian.org/1287645737.21075.10.ca...@argentum.vu.lt

Bug#600200: packages.d.o: switch to API providing versioned screenshots

[Paul Wise]

Package: www.debian.org
Severity: wishlist
Tags: patch
X-Debbugs-CC: Christoph Haas h...@debian.org

The attached (untested) patch switches packages.d.o to the API that
provides versioned screenshots. If the requested version does not exist
it goes with the closest lower version. If no lower version exists it
goes with the closest higher version. So we avoid showing features that
a newer version would have. Please apply.

-- 
bye,
pabs

http://wiki.debian.org/PaulWise
From 00f2ab8d29bcc25f764c48ea0641225bf23beed2 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
From: Paul Wise p...@debian.org
Date: Thu, 14 Oct 2010 23:17:14 +0800
Subject: [PATCH] Use versioned screenshots on binary package pages

---
 templates/config.tmpl|2 +-
 templates/html/show.tmpl |2 +-
 2 files changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)

diff --git a/templates/config.tmpl b/templates/config.tmpl
index aa1dee5..4d24e05 100644
--- a/templates/config.tmpl
+++ b/templates/config.tmpl
@@ -24,7 +24,7 @@
cn_help_url = project_homepage _ 'intro/cn'
patch_tracking_url = 'http://patch-tracker.debian.org/package'
screenshots_url = 'http://screenshots.debian.net/package/'
-   screenshots_thumb_url = 'http://screenshots.debian.net/thumbnail/'
+   screenshots_thumb_url = 'http://screenshots.debian.net/thumbnail-with-version/'
logo = {
 	url = project_homepage,
 src = '/Pics/openlogo-nd-25.png',
diff --git a/templates/html/show.tmpl b/templates/html/show.tmpl
index e86af33..ebbba77 100644
--- a/templates/html/show.tmpl
+++ b/templates/html/show.tmpl
@@ -64,7 +64,7 @@
 div id=pmoreinfo
 h2[% g('Links for %s', pkg) %]/h2
 [% IF screenshots_url  screenshots_thumb_url  !is_source %]
-a id=screenshot href=[% screenshots_url _ pkg %]img src=[% screenshots_thumb_url _ pkg %] alt=Screenshot border=0//a
+a id=screenshot href=[% screenshots_url _ pkg %]img src=[% $screenshots_thumb_url/$pkg/$version %] alt=Screenshot border=0//a
 [% END %]
 h3[% g('%s Resources:', organisation) %]/h3
 ul
-- 
1.7.1



signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part

Bug#599425: packages.d.o: do not say 200 OK on errors

[Peter Palfrader]

Package: www.debian.org
Severity: normal

Hey,

packages.d.o (and archive.d.n) say 200 OK even on errors.

e.g.:
| wea...@intrepid:~$ wget -S  
http://packages.debian.org/debian-volatile/dists/etch/volatile/main/source/Sources.bz2
| --2010-10-07 16:48:10--  
http://packages.debian.org/debian-volatile/dists/etch/volatile/main/source/Sources.bz2
| Resolving packages.debian.org... 194.177.211.202, 87.106.64.223, 128.31.0.49, 
...
| Connecting to packages.debian.org|194.177.211.202|:80... connected.
| HTTP request sent, awaiting response... 
|   HTTP/1.1 200 OK
| ^^
|   Date: Thu, 07 Oct 2010 14:48:11 GMT
|   Server: Apache

The document itself then says 'titleDebian -- Error/title' but that's not
really enough.

Cheers,
weasel



-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-www-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Archive: 
http://lists.debian.org/20101007144908.27151.97154.report...@intrepid.palfrader.org

Bug#596846: marked as done (packages.d.o: search of content in sid packages is broken)

[Debian Bug Tracking System]

Your message dated Sat, 18 Sep 2010 21:32:26 +0200
with message-id 20100918193226.ga15...@dedibox.ebzao.info
and subject line Re: Bug#597236: packages.debian.org: searching by filename 
doesn't find anything in sid
has caused the Debian Bug report #597236,
regarding packages.d.o: search of content in sid packages is broken
to be marked as done.

This means that you claim that the problem has been dealt with.
If this is not the case it is now your responsibility to reopen the
Bug report if necessary, and/or fix the problem forthwith.

(NB: If you are a system administrator and have no idea what this
message is talking about, this may indicate a serious mail system
misconfiguration somewhere. Please contact ow...@bugs.debian.org
immediately.)


-- 
597236: http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=597236
Debian Bug Tracking System
Contact ow...@bugs.debian.org with problems
---BeginMessage---
Package: www.debian.org

Searching for gettext.jar in squeeze returns the gettext [0] package and
in sid nothing [1]. Both have the same version. According to
Contents-amd64 [2] it is still there:

| zgrep gettext.jar Contents-amd64.gz
| usr/share/java/gettext.jar   devel/gettext

Anyone an idea what might went wrong?

[0] 
http://packages.debian.org/search?suite=squeezesearchon=contentskeywords=gettext.jar
[1] 
http://packages.debian.org/search?suite=sidsearchon=contentskeywords=gettext.jar
  
[2] http://ftp.ch.debian.org/debian/dists/sid/Contents-amd64.gz

Sebastian


---End Message---
---BeginMessage---
On Sat, Sep 18, 2010 at 03:31:33PM +0200, Simon Paillard wrote:
 On Fri, Sep 17, 2010 at 10:52:19PM +0200, Christoph Berg wrote:
  Package: www.debian.org
  Severity: important
  
  Compare
  http://packages.debian.org/search?suite=lennyarch=i386mode=filenamesearchon=contentskeywords=bash
  with
  http://packages.debian.org/search?suite=sidarch=i386mode=filenamesearchon=contentskeywords=bash
  
  - empty.
 
 /srv/packages.debian.org/files/db/contents/filenames_sid.txt is empty
 (while generated by bin/parse-contents).
 
 It the seems the recent addition of more debian-ports archs made some
 files to big for /tmp/ packages-master (bin/parse-content line 165).

In order to not depend on /tmp/ capacity, the following has been added
to /srv/packages.debian.org/bin/push_update :
export TMPDIR=/srv/packages.debian.org/tmp/

The research seems to be ok on sid filenames as well.

-- 
Simon Paillard

---End Message---

Bug#596846: packages.d.o: search of content in sid packages is broken

[Sebastian Andrzej Siewior]

Package: www.debian.org

Searching for gettext.jar in squeeze returns the gettext [0] package and
in sid nothing [1]. Both have the same version. According to
Contents-amd64 [2] it is still there:

| zgrep gettext.jar Contents-amd64.gz
| usr/share/java/gettext.jar   devel/gettext

Anyone an idea what might went wrong?

[0] 
http://packages.debian.org/search?suite=squeezesearchon=contentskeywords=gettext.jar
[1] 
http://packages.debian.org/search?suite=sidsearchon=contentskeywords=gettext.jar
  
[2] http://ftp.ch.debian.org/debian/dists/sid/Contents-amd64.gz

Sebastian



-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-www-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Archive: 
http://lists.debian.org/20100914144245.ga5...@chamillionaire.breakpoint.cc

Re: debtags on packages.d.o

[Gerfried Fuchs]

Hi!

* David Prévot da...@tilapin.org [2010-08-26 16:56:03 CEST]:
 [I hope it is correct to use this list for this request, please, point
 me to the good one and my apologies if I'm wrong]

 It's the proper list. :)

 I uploaded debtags French translation on packages one and a half days
 ago, but it doesn't seems to be used at all. Is there a way to publicly
 access the log in order to understand where could be the mistake ?

 The packages site doesn't automatically pull in commits because the
repository does include the code that is run on the system directly and
we wouldn't want everyone with webwml commit access to be able to break
the system - that's why manual syncing is needed.

 I usually do it every few weeks since I got a bit more familiar with
the setup and more confident on how things work together - and I just
did it now, so they should be available after the next mirror pulse
which triggers an update to the packages pages, too.

 Thanks for your contribution!
Rhonda
-- 
Lediglich 11 Prozent der Arbeitgeber sind der Meinung, dass jeder
Mensch auch ein Privatleben haben sollte.
-- http://www.karriere.at/artikel/884/


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-www-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Archive: http://lists.debian.org/20100830093230.ga12...@anguilla.debian.or.at

debtags on packages.d.o

[David Prévot]

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1

[I hope it is correct to use this list for this request, please, point
me to the good one and my apologies if I'm wrong]

Hi,

I uploaded debtags French translation on packages one and a half days
ago, but it doesn't seems to be used at all. Is there a way to publicly
access the log in order to understand where could be the mistake ?

Cheers

David

-BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-
Version: GnuPG v1.4.10 (GNU/Linux)

iEYEARECAAYFAkx2gIEACgkQ18/WetbTC/qX/ACfXJrjiAN0Od3SOhDaBNdoKE4l
m4UAn1gQHRDbHfWxEGJ4oMbuPBaOJoWE
=M5gi
-END PGP SIGNATURE-


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-www-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Archive: http://lists.debian.org/4c768083.9080...@tilapin.org

Re: debtags on packages.d.o

[Simon Paillard]

On Thu, Aug 26, 2010 at 10:56:03AM -0400, David Prévot wrote:
 [I hope it is correct to use this list for this request, please, point
 me to the good one and my apologies if I'm wrong]

This is the right list.

 I uploaded debtags French translation on packages one and a half days
 ago, but it doesn't seems to be used at all. Is there a way to publicly
 access the log in order to understand where could be the mistake ?

There is no mistake, it's just that packages.debian.org need to be
manually updated (through git command) by people from pkg_maint group.

Since I'm a bit lost in this process, I wait for Rhonda instructions
about that..

-- 
Simon Paillard


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-www-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Archive: http://lists.debian.org/20100826152652.gd27...@dedibox.ebzao.info

screenshot.debian.net use from packages.d.o: some optimisation ?

[Simon Paillard]

Hi,

Now packages.debian.org displays the thumbnail (#262617), I feel the
package loading is quite slow:
* when no thumbnail is available, every thumbnail is still downloaded
   - one can use a redirect instead of 404 (easy)
   - provide a list of packages with pictures (need more changes) 

* png captures are not optimal, would it be possible to use optipng on
  a new screenshot upload ?

Example on the 404 picture:
Input file size = 6178 bytes
Output file size = 3382 bytes (2796 bytes = 45.26% decrease)

* last but not least, what about making screenshots.debian.net official ?
  1/ I don't know anything about the current hosting, but it may improve
  speed.
  2/ There are too many non official service that can disappear one day
  or another because of HW failure..

Regards.

-- 
Simon Paillard


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-www-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Archive: http://lists.debian.org/20100822200742.ga5...@dedibox.ebzao.info

Bug#562153: changelogs on packages.d.o broken? (no, not the usual delay)

[Philipp Kern]

On Wed, Dec 23, 2009 at 09:45:02AM +0100, Stefano Zacchiroli wrote:
 I've seen other bug reports related to this issue, but they seem older
 and more related to the fact that changelog are not _always_ up to
 date. I'm not asking that, a scheduled update is more than reasonable,
 but I've the impression that this time something more serious has
 broken.

Indeed.  Perl bailed out because of a syntax error in a warning that got
triggered.  I think it should recover itself now, although I have to leave it
up to the team to fix it properly.

Kind regards,
Philipp Kern
-- 
 .''`.  Philipp KernDebian Developer
: :' :  http://philkern.de Stable Release Manager
`. `'   xmpp:p...@0x539.de Wanna-Build Admin
  `-finger pkern/k...@db.debian.org


signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Bug#562153: changelogs on packages.d.o broken? (no, not the usual delay)

[Philipp Kern]

On Wed, Dec 23, 2009 at 06:50:43PM +0100, Simon Paillard wrote:
 @powell$ find /srv/packages.debian.org/www/changelogs/pool/main -name 
 changelog.html -a -mtime -6
 doesn't return anything.
 The last changelogs were generated for main on 16th Dec.
 
 non-free and contrib are not affected.
 
 From /srv/packages.debian.org/files/logs/changelogs.log.*
 Can't use string (0.841) as a HASH ref while strict refs in use at
 /org/packages.debian.org/bin/extract_files line 614.
 and debian-edu 0.841 has been uploaded on 16th Dec (oh same date as the
 changelog generation stopped):
 http://packages.qa.debian.org/d/debian-edu/news/20091216T110245Z.html
 
 But I still don't understand why it affects specifically debian-edu packages..
 Hopefully Frank will read this soon.

extract_files: DEBUG: found binary package education-development, version 
0.841, architecture sparc

real12m30.600s
user0m56.884s
sys 0m3.772s
program exited with non-zero exitcode: 0

It looks to me as if that confuses extract_files sufficiently so that it
doesn't continue as usual.

Kind regards,
Philipp Kern
-- 
 .''`.  Philipp KernDebian Developer
: :' :  http://philkern.de Stable Release Manager
`. `'   xmpp:p...@0x539.de Wanna-Build Admin
  `-finger pkern/k...@db.debian.org


signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Bug#562153: changelogs on packages.d.o broken? (no, not the usual delay)

[Stefano Zacchiroli]

Package: www.debian.org
Severity: important


Heya,
  it seems that recently (1 week to 10 days?) the changelogs on
packages.debian.org have broken or are more out of date than they used
to be. Several people on #debian-devel have noticed various non up to
date packages and others are reporting to have switched to the PTS RSS
views to keep an eye on packages evolution (which is suboptimal, has the
PTS doesn't have the changelog entries, the lack of which also breaks
aptitude changelog support).

As a practical example I've this one:

  http://packages.qa.debian.org/f/file.html
  http://packages.debian.org/changelogs/pool/main/f/file/current/changelog

4 days ago the package was uploaded, but it does not appear yet in the
changelog of packages.d.o.

I've seen other bug reports related to this issue, but they seem older
and more related to the fact that changelog are not _always_ up to
date. I'm not asking that, a scheduled update is more than reasonable,
but I've the impression that this time something more serious has
broken.

Cheers.

-- 
Stefano Zacchiroli -o- PhD in Computer Science \ PostDoc @ Univ. Paris 7
z...@{upsilon.cc,pps.jussieu.fr,debian.org} -- http://upsilon.cc/zack/
Dietro un grande uomo c'è ..|  .  |. Et ne m'en veux pas si je te tutoie
sempre uno zaino ...| ..: | Je dis tu à tous ceux que j'aime



--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-www-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org

Bug#562153: changelogs on packages.d.o broken? (no, not the usual delay)

[Simon Paillard]

retitle 562153 packages.debian.org: extraction of changelogs of packages from 
main broken since 16th Dec
thanks

Hi Stefano,

On Wed, Dec 23, 2009 at 09:45:02AM +0100, Stefano Zacchiroli wrote:
 Package: www.debian.org
 Severity: important
 
   it seems that recently (1 week to 10 days?) the changelogs on
 packages.debian.org have broken or are more out of date than they used
 to be.
[...]
 As a practical example I've this one:
   http://packages.qa.debian.org/f/file.html
   http://packages.debian.org/changelogs/pool/main/f/file/current/changelog

Indeed:
@powell$ find /srv/packages.debian.org/www/changelogs/pool/main -name 
changelog.html -a -mtime -6
doesn't return anything.
The last changelogs were generated for main on 16th Dec.

non-free and contrib are not affected.

From /srv/packages.debian.org/files/logs/changelogs.log.*
Can't use string (0.841) as a HASH ref while strict refs in use at
/org/packages.debian.org/bin/extract_files line 614.
and debian-edu 0.841 has been uploaded on 16th Dec (oh same date as the
changelog generation stopped):
http://packages.qa.debian.org/d/debian-edu/news/20091216T110245Z.html

But I still don't understand why it affects specifically debian-edu packages..
Hopefully Frank will read this soon.

http://git.debian.org/?p=webwml/packages.git;a=blob_plain;f=bin/extract_files;hb=HEAD


-- 
Simon Paillard



-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-www-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org

Processed: Re: Bug#562153: changelogs on packages.d.o broken? (no, not the usual delay)

[Debian Bug Tracking System]

Processing commands for cont...@bugs.debian.org:

 retitle 562153 packages.debian.org: extraction of changelogs of packages from 
 main broken since 16th Dec
Bug #562153 [www.debian.org] packages.debian.org: changelogs broken (no, not 
the usual delay)
Changed Bug title to 'packages.debian.org: extraction of changelogs of packages 
from main broken since 16th Dec' from 'packages.debian.org: changelogs broken 
(no, not the usual delay)'
 thanks
Stopping processing here.

Please contact me if you need assistance.

Debian bug tracking system administrator
(administrator, Debian Bugs database)


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-www-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org

Bug#440641: packages.d.o: patch for debports/etc explanation links

[Simon Paillard]

tags 440641 + pending
thanks

On Tue, Nov 11, 2008 at 04:24:47PM +0900, Paul Wise wrote:
 On Fri, 2008-10-24 at 20:51 +0200, Frank Lichtenheld wrote:
  The patch provided in this bug is now applied, but I will not close it
  yet since I think the situation could still be improved, e.g. by links to
  more verbose information.
 
 The attached patch fixes this and supplies default links pointing to the
 policy manual for main/contrib/non-free/essential and to the websites
 for debian/debports/backports/volatile.

The patch from Paul has been applied to the git repo.
http://git.debian.org/?p=webwml/packages.git;a=commitdiff;h=f6f9ce6249b61d2c07b12058152bfc4de92be10b


-- 
Simon Paillard



-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-www-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org

Processed: Re: Bug#440641: packages.d.o: patch for debports/etc explanation links

[Debian Bug Tracking System]

Processing commands for cont...@bugs.debian.org:

 tags 440641 + pending
Bug #440641 [www.debian.org] packages.debian.org: explain debports, contrib, 
non-free, volatile, etc
Added tag(s) pending.
 thanks
Stopping processing here.

Please contact me if you need assistance.

Debian bug tracking system administrator
(administrator, Debian Bugs database)


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-www-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org

Re: Changelogs on packages.d.o are not updated anymore

[Simon Paillard]

Hello,

On Thu, Jun 04, 2009 at 01:00:05PM +0200, Michael Bienia wrote:
 while looking at some changelogs linked from the PTS for some recent
 uploads I discovered that they aren't updated anymore.
 Checking some more packages it seems to have stopped around 2009-05-24.
 While uploads from 2009-05-23 have an updated changelog [1], uploads
 after 2009-05-24 are missing them [2].
 
 1: http://packages.debian.org/changelogs/pool/main/u/ude/current/changelog
 2: 
 http://packages.debian.org/changelogs/pool/main/r/reportbug/current/changelog

Thanks for your report. It's fixed now. 

-- 
Simon Paillard


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-www-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org

Changelogs on packages.d.o are not updated anymore

[Michael Bienia]

Hello,

while looking at some changelogs linked from the PTS for some recent
uploads I discovered that they aren't updated anymore.
Checking some more packages it seems to have stopped around 2009-05-24.
While uploads from 2009-05-23 have an updated changelog [1], uploads
after 2009-05-24 are missing them [2].

Michael

1: http://packages.debian.org/changelogs/pool/main/u/ude/current/changelog
2: http://packages.debian.org/changelogs/pool/main/r/reportbug/current/changelog


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-www-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org

Bug#514658: sponsor recognition on packages.d.o

[Gerfried Fuchs]

Am Montag, den 09.02.2009, 23:12 +0100 schrieb Peter Palfrader:
 Package: www.debian.org
 Version: 2009-02-09
 Severity: normal
 
 all pages on packages.d.o give credit to our kind sponsors in a footer.
 The only exception is the entry page, http://packages.debian.org/
 because it is a redirect to http://www.debian.org/distrib/packages and
 there is no pointer to sponsors or anyone there.

 The website has it just in the lefthand column in its entry page.

 It would be good if we could thank our sponsors on the most prominent
 page of that service.

 But ... you said it yourself, it's a redirect to a different page, and
that one isn't hosted by the same organization, or am I wrong? That part
isn't part of that service, it's part of a different service.

 I don't know what the best way to fix this is, we could either move the
 start page back onto packages.d.o, but need some infrastructure to deal
 with translations - otoh we may already have that for some of the things
 on packages.d.o.  Or we duplicate the sponsor info in webwml, or
 packages.d.o uses the sponsor info stored in some form in webwml.

 When one uses the form from that page they will end up in a
packages.d.o page that has the according service and site sponsor
listed, I'm not really sure if this is really that big deal? Putting the
sponsor information somewhere into that page might work out, but then
you have to keep it current in two different services which is rather
error prone - and personally I don't really see the big benefit?

 Thanks,
Rhonda


signature.asc
Description: Dies ist ein digital signierter Nachrichtenteil

Bug#514658: sponsor recognition on packages.d.o

[Peter Palfrader]

Gerfried Fuchs schrieb am Dienstag, dem 10. Feber 2009:

  all pages on packages.d.o give credit to our kind sponsors in a footer.
  The only exception is the entry page, http://packages.debian.org/
  because it is a redirect to http://www.debian.org/distrib/packages and
  there is no pointer to sponsors or anyone there.
 
  The website has it just in the lefthand column in its entry page.

That's for the mirror of the www.debian.org site.  Not for the systems
providing the packages.d.o service.

  It would be good if we could thank our sponsors on the most prominent
  page of that service.
 
  But ... you said it yourself, it's a redirect to a different page, and
 that one isn't hosted by the same organization, or am I wrong? That part
 isn't part of that service, it's part of a different service.

http://www.debian.org/distrib/packages no matter on which server it is
hosted is part of the packages.debian.org service.

  I don't know what the best way to fix this is, we could either move the
  start page back onto packages.d.o, but need some infrastructure to deal
  with translations - otoh we may already have that for some of the things
  on packages.d.o.  Or we duplicate the sponsor info in webwml, or
  packages.d.o uses the sponsor info stored in some form in webwml.
 
  When one uses the form from that page they will end up in a
 packages.d.o page that has the according service and site sponsor
 listed, I'm not really sure if this is really that big deal? Putting the
 sponsor information somewhere into that page might work out, but then
 you have to keep it current in two different services which is rather
 error prone - and personally I don't really see the big benefit?

I think it's pretty offputting to sponsors when they are not credited at
the entry page to a service.

-- 
   |  .''`.  ** Debian GNU/Linux **
  Peter Palfrader  | : :' :  The  universal
 http://www.palfrader.org/ | `. `'  Operating System
   |   `-http://www.debian.org/



-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-www-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org

Bug#514658: sponsor recognition on packages.d.o

[Gerfried Fuchs]

* Peter Palfrader wea...@debian.org [2009-02-10 13:13:25 CET]:
 Gerfried Fuchs schrieb am Dienstag, dem 10. Feber 2009:
   all pages on packages.d.o give credit to our kind sponsors in a footer.
   The only exception is the entry page, http://packages.debian.org/
   because it is a redirect to http://www.debian.org/distrib/packages and
   there is no pointer to sponsors or anyone there.
  
   The website has it just in the lefthand column in its entry page.
 
 That's for the mirror of the www.debian.org site.  Not for the systems
 providing the packages.d.o service.

 Of course, because the page is part of the www.debian.org site. I know
it might sound nitpicking and I don't deny that, but I don't see the
real need to make a different footer for a single page.

 Besides, I haven't yet heard any suggestion in how you'd like to see
the acknowledgement, or anything that would be possible to turn into
some patch suggestion.

   But ... you said it yourself, it's a redirect to a different page, and
  that one isn't hosted by the same organization, or am I wrong? That part
  isn't part of that service, it's part of a different service.
 
 http://www.debian.org/distrib/packages no matter on which server it is
 hosted is part of the packages.debian.org service.

 That's as nitpicking as myself and I guess we won't be able to find a
common ground on this.

 I think it's pretty offputting to sponsors when they are not credited at
 the entry page to a service.

 I wouldn't call it the entry page to the service, but ...

 ... but 11 is already quite big presented on
http://www.debian.org/partners/, the canonical page where we list all
big partners and sponsors.

 Personal question: Where you addressed by 11 that they consider it
belittling them? Why didn't they address us directly? What's the root of
this? It's just ... we have the partners page for a reason so that not
have to clutter the different pages with various informations and it has
worked for the years. So I really would like to know what's actually
behind this, are you part of 11 yourself, where does this request
otherwise origin in, and what's the deal?

 I'm not objecting to it per se - I just want to get facts straight
before changing the established workflow and guidelines.

 Thanks,
Rhonda



-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-www-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org

Bug#514658: sponsor recognition on packages.d.o

[Peter Palfrader]

Package: www.debian.org
Version: 2009-02-09
Severity: normal

So,

all pages on packages.d.o give credit to our kind sponsors in a footer.
The only exception is the entry page, http://packages.debian.org/
because it is a redirect to http://www.debian.org/distrib/packages and
there is no pointer to sponsors or anyone there.

It would be good if we could thank our sponsors on the most prominent
page of that service.

I don't know what the best way to fix this is, we could either move the
start page back onto packages.d.o, but need some infrastructure to deal
with translations - otoh we may already have that for some of the things
on packages.d.o.  Or we duplicate the sponsor info in webwml, or
packages.d.o uses the sponsor info stored in some form in webwml.

Peter
-- 
   |  .''`.  ** Debian GNU/Linux **
  Peter Palfrader  | : :' :  The  universal
 http://www.palfrader.org/ | `. `'  Operating System
   |   `-http://www.debian.org/



-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-www-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org

[PATCH] Traditional Chinese translation of packages.d.o

[Kanru Chen]

Hi,

Attached is the Traditional Chinese translation of packages.debian.org
in patch format.

Someone please apply it, thanks!

Regards,
Kanru


0001-Add-Traditional-Chinese-translation.patch.gz
Description: Binary data


signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Processed: packages.d.o: 264589: please link to manpages.d.n

[Debian Bug Tracking System]

Processing commands for [EMAIL PROTECTED]:

 retitle 264589 packages.d.o: please link to manpages on manpages.d.n
Bug#264589: www.debian.org: Online manpages, preferably linked by package?
Changed Bug title to `packages.d.o: please link to manpages on manpages.d.n' 
from `www.debian.org: Online manpages, preferably linked by package?'.

 thanks
Stopping processing here.

Please contact me if you need assistance.

Debian bug tracking system administrator
(administrator, Debian Bugs database)


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Bug#264589: packages.d.o: 264589: please link to manpages.d.n

[Paul Wise]

retitle 264589 packages.d.o: please link to manpages on manpages.d.n
thanks

I think it would be a good idea for packages.d.o to link to the HTML
versions of Debian manpages provided at manpages.debian.net.

Firstly the package contents pages should link the manual page path
names to the corresponding manual page on manpages.d.n.

Secondly, the individual package pages could have a documentation
section on the right sidebar linking to individual manual pages (and
doc-base info later on perhaps). If there are a large number of manual
pages in one package, manpages could grow a package search page and
packages.d.o could link to that.

-- 
bye,
pabs

http://wiki.debian.org/PaulWise


signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part

Processed: Re: packages.d.o: 442083: remaining i18n issues

[Debian Bug Tracking System]

Processing commands for [EMAIL PROTECTED]:

 tags 442083 + patch
Bug#442083: packages.debian.org: [i18n] several i18n related issues
There were no tags set.
Tags added: patch

 thanks
Stopping processing here.

Please contact me if you need assistance.

Debian bug tracking system administrator
(administrator, Debian Bugs database)


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Bug#442083: packages.d.o: 442083: remaining i18n issues

[Paul Wise]

tags 442083 + patch
thanks

On Wed, 2008-11-12 at 15:27 +0900, Paul Wise wrote:

 The list of languages down the bottom does not point to the DDTP
 project to encourage people to translate package descriptions.

Here is a naive patch for this. It places the DDTP advertisement just
below non-translated package descriptions and also in the footer.

diff --git a/templates/html/foot.tmpl b/templates/html/foot.tmpl
index cbabd66..0605749 100644
--- a/templates/html/foot.tmpl
+++ b/templates/html/foot.tmpl
@@ -23,6 +23,9 @@ Total page evaluation took [% benchmark %]br
 [% END %]
 
 hr class=hidecss
+a href=http://www.debian.org/intl/l10n/ddtp;[% g('Help Debian translate 
package descriptions to your language.') %]/a
+
+hr class=hidecss
 div id=fineprint class=bordertop
 div id=impressum
 p[% g('To report a problem with the web site, e-mail a 
href=mailto:%s;%s/a. For other contact information, see the %s a 
href=%scontact page/a.',
diff --git a/templates/html/show.tmpl b/templates/html/show.tmpl
index 48fdb45..beaaad5 100644
--- a/templates/html/show.tmpl
+++ b/templates/html/show.tmpl
@@ -188,6 +188,9 @@
[% IF desc.$desclang.short %]
h2[% desc.$desclang.short %]/h2
p[% desc.$desclang.long %]
+[% IF desclang != po_lang %]
+a href=http://www.debian.org/intl/l10n/ddtp;[% g('Help Debian 
translate package descriptions to your language.') %]/a
+[% END %]
[% END %]
 [% ELSE %]
 div id=pdesc

-- 
bye,
pabs

http://wiki.debian.org/PaulWise


signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part

Bug#442083: packages.d.o: 442083: remaining i18n issues

[Paul Wise]

The remaining i18n issues with packages.d.o seem to be:

The list of languages down the bottom does not point to the DDTP project
to encourage people to translate package descriptions.

The URLs in the list of Similar packages on the right sidebar does not
include the current language for the page. For example:

http://packages.debian.org/pt/sid/gcc
links to http://packages.debian.org/gcc-4.3
instead of http://packages.debian.org/pt/gcc-4.3

This can be fixed by the following naive patch:

diff --git a/templates/html/show.tmpl b/templates/html/show.tmpl
index 48fdb45..065b964 100644
--- a/templates/html/show.tmpl
+++ b/templates/html/show.tmpl
@@ -154,7 +154,7 @@
h3[% g('Similar packages:') %]/h3
ul
[% END %]
-   lia href=/[% sim %][% sim %]/a/li
+   lia href=/[% IF po_lang  po_lang != en %][% po_lang %]/[% END 
%][% sim %][% sim %]/a/li
[% '/ul' IF loop.last %]
 [% END %]

-- 
bye,
pabs

http://wiki.debian.org/PaulWise


signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part

Processed: packages.d.o: patch for debports/etc explanation links

[Debian Bug Tracking System]

Processing commands for [EMAIL PROTECTED]:

 tags 440641 + patch
Bug#440641: packages.debian.org: explain debports, contrib, non-free, volatile, 
etc
Tags were: confirmed
Tags added: patch

 thanks
Stopping processing here.

Please contact me if you need assistance.

Debian bug tracking system administrator
(administrator, Debian Bugs database)


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Bug#440641: packages.d.o: patch for debports/etc explanation links

[Paul Wise]

tags 440641 + patch
thanks

On Fri, 2008-10-24 at 20:51 +0200, Frank Lichtenheld wrote:

 The patch provided in this bug is now applied, but I will not close it
 yet since I think the situation could still be improved, e.g. by links to
 more verbose information.

The attached patch fixes this and supplies default links pointing to the
policy manual for main/contrib/non-free/essential and to the websites
for debian/debports/backports/volatile.

-- 
bye,
pabs

http://wiki.debian.org/PaulWise


0001-Add-links-for-non-default-sections-repositories-etc.patch
Description: application/mbox


signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part

mathomatic/exp at packages.d.o generates a 404 for copyright file

[Sandro Tosi]

Hello,
on the experimental page[1] of mathomatic, the copyright link[2] is
broken, while on the sid one[3] it works fine[4]; checking another
package, python-pp[5], its copyright file is visible[6].

May you please give it a look?

TIA,
Sandro

[1] http://packages.debian.org/experimental/mathomatic
[2] 
http://packages.debian.org/changelogs/pool/main/m/mathomatic/mathomatic_14.1.6-1/mathomatic.copyright
[3] http://packages.debian.org/sid/mathomatic
[4] 
http://packages.debian.org/changelogs/pool/main/m/mathomatic/mathomatic_14.0.6-1/mathomatic.copyright
[5] http://packages.debian.org/experimental/python-pp
[6] 
http://packages.debian.org/changelogs/pool/main/p/parallelpython/parallelpython_1.5.6-1/python-pp.copyright

-- 
Sandro Tosi (aka morph, Morpheus, matrixhasu)
My website: http://matrixhasu.altervista.org/
Me at Debian: http://wiki.debian.org/SandroTosi


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: packages.d.o serves content in the wrong language

[Frank Lichtenheld]

On Fri, Feb 15, 2008 at 07:30:06PM +0100, Lionel Elie Mamane wrote:
 http://packages.debian.org/etch/wordpress shows me the package
 descriptions in French, while my request is:
 
 GET /etch/wordpress HTTP/1.0
 Host: packages.debian.org
 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux x86_64; en-US; rv:1.8.1.12) 
 Gecko/20080208 (Debian-1.8.1.12-1) Galeon/2.0.4 (Debian 2.0.4-1)
 Accept: 
 text/xml,application/xml,application/xhtml+xml,text/html;q=0.9,text/plain;q=0.8,image/png,*/*;q=0.5
 Accept-Language: en-gb,en;q=0.8,fr;q=0.7,nl;q=0.5,de;q=0.3,he;q=0.2
 Accept-Encoding: gzip,deflate
 Accept-Charset: ISO-8859-15,utf-8;q=0.7,*;q=0.7
 Keep-Alive: 300
 Connection: keep-alive
 Pragma: no-cache
 
 thue explicitly preferring English. It should send me English, just
 like http://www.debian.org/ does.

Indeed it should.
Will fix tomorrow.

Gruesse,
-- 
Frank Lichtenheld [EMAIL PROTECTED]
www: http://www.djpig.de/


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

packages.d.o serves content in the wrong language

[Lionel Elie Mamane]

Hi,

http://packages.debian.org/etch/wordpress shows me the package
descriptions in French, while my request is:

GET /etch/wordpress HTTP/1.0
Host: packages.debian.org
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux x86_64; en-US; rv:1.8.1.12) 
Gecko/20080208 (Debian-1.8.1.12-1) Galeon/2.0.4 (Debian 2.0.4-1)
Accept: 
text/xml,application/xml,application/xhtml+xml,text/html;q=0.9,text/plain;q=0.8,image/png,*/*;q=0.5
Accept-Language: en-gb,en;q=0.8,fr;q=0.7,nl;q=0.5,de;q=0.3,he;q=0.2
Accept-Encoding: gzip,deflate
Accept-Charset: ISO-8859-15,utf-8;q=0.7,*;q=0.7
Keep-Alive: 300
Connection: keep-alive
Pragma: no-cache

thue explicitly preferring English. It should send me English, just
like http://www.debian.org/ does.

(Please CC, not subscribed).

-- 
Lionel


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: packages.d.o/pkgname - stable

[Franklin PIAT]

On Fri, 2007-12-14 at 22:57 +0100, Frank Lichtenheld wrote:
 On Fri, Dec 14, 2007 at 10:37:53PM +0100, Franklin PIAT wrote:
  On Fri, 2007-12-14 at 17:12 +0100, Frank Lichtenheld wrote: 
   On Fri, Dec 14, 2007 at 11:42:19AM +0100, martin f krafft wrote:
   The idea of making packages.d.o appearance and behaviour 
   configurable via cookies is on my to be considered list for 
   quite a while already, 
[..]

  BTW, it would be nice if distributions shipping the same version 
  could be grouped visually.
 
 Patches welcome. Sounds like a nice idea but someone would have to
 come up with the HTML and CSS... 

I've worked on a solution to group visually the sources shipping the
same version in packages.d.o.

I've recently implemented something similar for my own needs in my site,
you can have a look :
http://sysinf0.klabs.be/usr/lib/debootstrap/scripts/potato

Doing something similar for packages.d.o would require to change the
layout to something like :
+-+
| Package **ddccontrol** : a program to control monitor parameters|
++-+---+-+--+--+--+
||  alpha  | amd64 |   arm   | hppa | i386 | ia64 |
++-+---+-+--+--+--+
| sarge (oldstable)  | 0.4.2-1 | n.a   | 0.4.2-1 | n.a  | 0.4.2-1+b1  |
++-+---+-+--+--+--+
| lenny (stable) |  0.4.2-3  | n.a  |   0.4.2-3   |
++-+---+-+--+--+--+
| sid (unstable) | 9.99   |
++-+---+-+--+--+--+

Cells with the same version would be be merged and/or have the same
background color.

Such presentation would be a problem for provided by: links, like for
http://packages.debian.org/linux-image-2.6 

In order to implement this, I'm actually parsing the SQL results twice :
- in the first pass, I simply count how many time I find a given version
(in associative array).
- then I sort the array, and assign a color (when count  1).
- Finally, I actually display the results.

In my case, the cost is very low, because the MySQL results are cached
by PHP anyway.

I could try to implement this, but I would like to have some feedback
from you before I actually try to implement it (especially since I not
so comfortable with perl).
- What do you think about the idea / the presentation.
- What about having the same description for all packages ?
- Any pitfall in sight ?

Franklin


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

packages.d.o/pkgname - stable

[martin f krafft]

Hello,

the new packages.d.o is awesome. Thanks to everyone who made it
possible.

I'd like to suggest that packages.d.o/pkgname goes directly to
packages.d.o/stable/pkgname instead of the current disambiguation
page. Each proper package page has all the suites listed across the
top anyway, and making it redirect to the stable page (or possibly
allowing a default to be set in cookies) makes it easier to get at
information.

Comments welcome,

-- 
 .''`.   martin f. krafft [EMAIL PROTECTED]
: :'  :  proud Debian developer, author, administrator, and user
`. `'`   http://people.debian.org/~madduck - http://debiansystem.info
  `-  Debian - when you have better things to do than fixing systems
 
half a bee, philosophically, must ipso facto half not be.
but half the bee has got to be, vis-a-vis its entity. you see?
but can a bee be said to be or not to be an entire bee,
when half the bee is not a bee, due to some ancient injury?
   -- monty python


digital_signature_gpg.asc
Description: Digital signature (see http://martin-krafft.net/gpg/)

Re: packages.d.o/pkgname - stable

[Frank Lichtenheld]

On Fri, Dec 14, 2007 at 11:42:19AM +0100, martin f krafft wrote:
 I'd like to suggest that packages.d.o/pkgname goes directly to
 packages.d.o/stable/pkgname instead of the current disambiguation
 page. Each proper package page has all the suites listed across the
 top anyway, and making it redirect to the stable page (or possibly
 allowing a default to be set in cookies) makes it easier to get at
 information.

The idea of making packages.d.o appearance and behaviour configurable
via cookies is on my to be considered list for quite a while already,
yeah. I've mostly refrained from changing the default behaviour too
much, though.

As for your suggestion: Your specification is incomplete. Currently
there are at least four different things that might happen if you
visit p.d.o/string:
1) You only get an exact hit
2) You get an exact hit plus some substring matches
3) You only get substring matches
4) You don't get any hits
Does your proposal only concern case 1 or case 1 and 2?

Gruesse,
-- 
Frank Lichtenheld [EMAIL PROTECTED]
www: http://www.djpig.de/


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: packages.d.o/pkgname - stable

[martin f krafft]

also sprach Frank Lichtenheld [EMAIL PROTECTED] [2007.12.14.1712 +0100]:
 1) You only get an exact hit
 2) You get an exact hit plus some substring matches
 3) You only get substring matches
 4) You don't get any hits
 Does your proposal only concern case 1 or case 1 and 2?

Only 1 really, I wasn't explicitly aware of the others.

-- 
 .''`.   martin f. krafft [EMAIL PROTECTED]
: :'  :  proud Debian developer, author, administrator, and user
`. `'`   http://people.debian.org/~madduck - http://debiansystem.info
  `-  Debian - when you have better things to do than fixing systems
 
in the stage of grand illusion
 you walked into my life
 out of my dreams.
-- david bowie


digital_signature_gpg.asc
Description: Digital signature (see http://martin-krafft.net/gpg/)

Re: packages.d.o/pkgname - stable

[Franklin PIAT]

Hi,

On Fri, 2007-12-14 at 17:12 +0100, Frank Lichtenheld wrote: 
 On Fri, Dec 14, 2007 at 11:42:19AM +0100, martin f krafft wrote:
 The idea of making packages.d.o appearance and behaviour configurable
 via cookies is on my to be considered list for quite a while already,
 yeah. I've mostly refrained from changing the default behaviour too
 much, though.

Since I'm cleaning up wiki.d.o, i've noticed how easily people get
confused... let me raise an issue :

Let's imagine a user X sends an URL to user Y, which has different
preference, therefore they both get a different page.
Of course, the result for packages.d.o/pkgname could actually be an HTTP
redirection to packages.d.o/mydist/pkgname, based on the user
preference. User X would have sent the URL packages.d.o/mydist/pkgname
in this case.

Also, the current behaviour has something nice : by default, people see
that stable,testing and unstable have different version, even without
having to click anywhere. A similar result could be obtained by listing
alternatives in a sidebar.
BTW, it would be nice if distributions shipping the same version could
be grouped visually.

 As for your suggestion: Your specification is incomplete. Currently
 there are at least four different things that might happen if you
 visit p.d.o/string:
 1) You only get an exact hit
 2) You get an exact hit plus some substring matches
 3) You only get substring matches
 4) You don't get any hits
 Does your proposal only concern case 1 or case 1 and 2?

Finally, the point 4 could be tricky to handle : if a user choose to
display unstable, but the package isn't available anymore, what would be
the best result ?

Still, i like the general idea, and thanks for packages.d.o.

Franklin


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: packages.d.o/pkgname - stable

[Frank Lichtenheld]

On Fri, Dec 14, 2007 at 05:22:31PM +0100, martin f krafft wrote:
 also sprach Frank Lichtenheld [EMAIL PROTECTED] [2007.12.14.1712 +0100]:
  1) You only get an exact hit
  2) You get an exact hit plus some substring matches
  3) You only get substring matches
  4) You don't get any hits
  Does your proposal only concern case 1 or case 1 and 2?
 
 Only 1 really, I wasn't explicitly aware of the others.

Probably because in the old version there was no case 2 and 3.

Gruesse,
-- 
Frank Lichtenheld [EMAIL PROTECTED]
www: http://www.djpig.de/


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: packages.d.o/pkgname - stable

[Frank Lichtenheld]

On Fri, Dec 14, 2007 at 10:37:53PM +0100, Franklin PIAT wrote:
 On Fri, 2007-12-14 at 17:12 +0100, Frank Lichtenheld wrote: 
  On Fri, Dec 14, 2007 at 11:42:19AM +0100, martin f krafft wrote:
  The idea of making packages.d.o appearance and behaviour configurable
  via cookies is on my to be considered list for quite a while already,
  yeah. I've mostly refrained from changing the default behaviour too
  much, though.
 
 Since I'm cleaning up wiki.d.o, i've noticed how easily people get
 confused... let me raise an issue :
 
 Let's imagine a user X sends an URL to user Y, which has different
 preference, therefore they both get a different page.
 Of course, the result for packages.d.o/pkgname could actually be an HTTP
 redirection to packages.d.o/mydist/pkgname, based on the user
 preference. User X would have sent the URL packages.d.o/mydist/pkgname
 in this case.

Yeah. It definetly would be a HTTP redirect. Everything else would just
be evil.

 Also, the current behaviour has something nice : by default, people see
 that stable,testing and unstable have different version, even without
 having to click anywhere. A similar result could be obtained by listing
 alternatives in a sidebar.
 BTW, it would be nice if distributions shipping the same version could
 be grouped visually.

Patches welcome. Sounds like a nice idea but someone would have to come
up with the HTML and CSS...

  As for your suggestion: Your specification is incomplete. Currently
  there are at least four different things that might happen if you
  visit p.d.o/string:
  1) You only get an exact hit
  2) You get an exact hit plus some substring matches
  3) You only get substring matches
  4) You don't get any hits
  Does your proposal only concern case 1 or case 1 and 2?
 
 Finally, the point 4 could be tricky to handle : if a user choose to
 display unstable, but the package isn't available anymore, what would be
 the best result ?

We should just improve the current error page so that this question
becomes a nobrainer... (Patches welcome...)

FWIW my first use for a user configuration would be to replace the
current source package page with the PTS page... I think it would be
somewhat frightening to the casual user but for developers there really
isn't a good reason to ever use the current source package page over the
PTS page.

Gruesse,
-- 
Frank Lichtenheld [EMAIL PROTECTED]
www: http://www.djpig.de/


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

packages.d.o compares ~ diferently than dpkg

[James Blanford]

jim:~% dpkg --compare-versions 0.4.1-1 '' 0.4~
jim:~% echo $?
1

Then go to:

http://packages.debian.org/sid/griffith

and note that python-sqlalchemy (0.4.1-1)
is accepted as ( 0.4~)

-- 
Voy a salir cuando muera
O caiga el gran imperio.

Guantanamero, soy preso guantanamero.


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Status Update packages.d.o L10N (was: Translating packages.debian.org (Call for translations))

[Frank Lichtenheld]

Status update:

On Sun, Oct 28, 2007 at 09:44:00PM +0100, Frank Lichtenheld wrote:
 On Thu, Oct 18, 2007 at 12:04:49AM +0200, Frank Lichtenheld wrote:
  As most of you might have noticed, packages.debian.org has gone through
  quite some changes in the last months. After this has now stabilized
  somewhat and after I (mostly) fixed the l10n support again, I would now 
  welcome
  translations of these websites.
 
 Turns out I didn't actually fix the l10n support. The combination of
 mpm_worker, mod_perl and gettext turned out to produce somewhat funny
 results rather than correct ones. Very obvious though in hindsight :-/
 I have ideas how to fix this but it will be a while. Therefor currenlty
 translations (of strings) are only available at the static index pages.

I've now converted the translation support to use Locale::Maketext
instead of Locale::Gettext and this should now give proper scoping to
language settings. Feel free to stress test the new code at
http://packages.debian.net/ and report any problems.

The .pot file don't have changed much during this transition.
BUT: Since Locale::Maketext doesn't have the same level of
encoding support as gettext now all .po files have to be in
UTF-8. I converted all existing files with iconv.
If that change is a problem for any translators, please contact me
so that we can work out a solution.

Gruesse,
-- 
Frank Lichtenheld [EMAIL PROTECTED]
www: http://www.djpig.de/


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: Translating packages.d.o

[Tommi Vainikainen]

Frank Lichtenheld [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
 On Sat, Oct 13, 2007 at 10:29:57AM +0300, Tommi Vainikainen wrote:
 First, there is charset problems. If you open http://p.d.o/sid/, it
 contains something like this:
 
 meta http-equiv=Content-Type content=text/html;charset=fi_FI.UTF-8
 
 Obviously this charset=XXX is wrong. It should contain only charset, not
 locale. This matters in Finnish because, it gives that as UTF-8, and the
 page is in UTF-8 charset, but in HTTP headers it gives ISO-8859-1 as
 charset, and user sees UTF-8 garbage. However if you for some reason
 select link suomi (Finnish) from the bottom, it loads URL with
 ?lang=fi, and that page is correct, because HTTP header then contains
 UTF-8 as charset.

 Ok, will look into that bug.

It seems that the bug applies to Dutch and Finnish. The common factor
seems to be that conf/apache.conf(.sed.in) contains AddCharset
ISO-8859-1 for those languages. Also if HTTP Content-Type header is
correct, then HTML meta tag is redundant, and may be removed.

-- 
Tommi Vainikainen


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: Translating packages.d.o

[Frank Lichtenheld]

On Sat, Oct 13, 2007 at 07:18:35PM +0300, Tommi Vainikainen wrote:
 It seems that the bug applies to Dutch and Finnish. The common factor
 seems to be that conf/apache.conf(.sed.in) contains AddCharset
 ISO-8859-1 for those languages. Also if HTTP Content-Type header is
 correct, then HTML meta tag is redundant, and may be removed.

I have already fixed these bugs locally (the wrong charset in the meta tag
was an independent bug from the fact that apache sent the wrong
encoding), packages.debian.net should not be affected anymore. Will push
out later.

While you are correct that the meta tag is redundant I personally prefer to
have it present. If only to detect misconfiguration of apache ;)

Gruesse,
-- 
Frank Lichtenheld [EMAIL PROTECTED]
www: http://www.djpig.de/


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Bug#364312: marked as done (www.debian.org: new packages.d.o/changelog:$PACKAGE doesn't work with libraries)

[Debian Bug Tracking System]

Your message dated Sun, 2 Sep 2007 20:55:38 +0200
with message-id [EMAIL PROTECTED]
and subject line New packages.debian.org version
has caused the attached Bug report to be marked as done.

This means that you claim that the problem has been dealt with.
If this is not the case it is now your responsibility to reopen the
Bug report if necessary, and/or fix the problem forthwith.

(NB: If you are a system administrator and have no idea what I am
talking about this indicates a serious mail system misconfiguration
somewhere.  Please contact me immediately.)

Debian bug tracking system administrator
(administrator, Debian Bugs database)

---BeginMessage---
Package: www.debian.org
Severity: normal

I love this feature, but found that libraries should get special
treatment, currently

http://packages.debian.org/changelog:libcaca-dev 

gets translated to:

http://packages.debian.org/changelogs/pool/main/l/libcaca/current/changelog

but it should get translated to:

http://packages.debian.org/changelogs/pool/main/libc/libcaca/current/changelog

Hope to help, and keep up the good work :-)

Damián Viano(Des).

---End Message---
---BeginMessage---
I installed a new code version on packages.debian.org today and I
believe it fixes the following bugs:

#87725: packages.debian.org: suggesting new links to access package web
pages 

Package URLs don't need to include the section anymore.

#364312: www.debian.org: new packages.d.o/changelog:$PACKAGE doesn't
work with libraries 

The changelog package map is now updated more reliably.

#402911: md5sum is part of the url of packages.debian.org

The download page now gets all information directly from the database.

#335011: www.debian.org: packages.debian.org isn't dynamic 

Most of the content of packages.debian.org is now generated
dynamically. Update times should get reduced dramatically.

#354920: Symlinks for release numbers and codenames on
packages.debian.org 

packages.d.o now uses codenames by default and accepts
suite names and version numbers as aliases

Gruesse,
-- 
Frank Lichtenheld [EMAIL PROTECTED]
www: http://www.djpig.de/
---End Message---

Bug#362703: marked as done (packages.d.o: package database is lagging behind unstable)

[Debian Bug Tracking System]

Your message dated Sun, 2 Sep 2007 20:55:38 +0200
with message-id [EMAIL PROTECTED]
and subject line New packages.debian.org version
has caused the attached Bug report to be marked as done.

This means that you claim that the problem has been dealt with.
If this is not the case it is now your responsibility to reopen the
Bug report if necessary, and/or fix the problem forthwith.

(NB: If you are a system administrator and have no idea what I am
talking about this indicates a serious mail system misconfiguration
somewhere.  Please contact me immediately.)

Debian bug tracking system administrator
(administrator, Debian Bugs database)

---BeginMessage---
Package: reportbug
Version: 3.20
Severity: normal


The following version error seems mistaken:

% reportbug -b freeguide
 stuff deleted 

Getting status for freeguide...
Verifying package integrity...
Checking for newer versions at packages.debian.org...
Your version of freeguide (0.10.3-1) is newer than that in Debian! Do you 
still want to
file a report [y|N|q|?]?

...because my new 'freeguide' is Debian's:

% zcat /usr/share/doc/freeguide/changelog.Debian.gz | head
freeguide (0.10.3-1) unstable; urgency=low

  * New upstream release.
  * Use ant to install the package to debian/tmp.
  * Help/About links work. Closes: #288526.
  * Load font preferences at startup. Closes: #288517.
  * Check for valid widget size. Closes: #288528.

 -- Shaun Jackman [EMAIL PROTECTED]  Thu, 13 Apr 2006 09:40:22 -0600

I'm guessing either the 'freeguide' package is configured funny,
or 'reportbug' is confused, or both -- apologies if it's not
'reportbug'.

Hope this helps...



-- Package-specific info:
** Environment settings:
EDITOR=mcedit
EMAIL=[EMAIL PROTECTED]

** /home/alfie/.reportbugrc:
reportbug_version 3.2
mode standard
ui text
realname A Costa
email [EMAIL PROTECTED]

-- System Information:
Debian Release: testing/unstable
  APT prefers unstable
  APT policy: (500, 'unstable'), (1, 'experimental')
Architecture: i386 (i686)
Shell:  /bin/sh linked to /bin/bash
Kernel: Linux 2.6.16-1-686
Locale: LANG=C, LC_CTYPE=C (charmap=ANSI_X3.4-1968) (ignored: LC_ALL set to C)

Versions of packages reportbug depends on:
ii  python2.3 2.3.5-9.1  An interactive high-level object-o

Versions of packages reportbug recommends:
ii  python2.3-iconvcodec  1.1.2-2Python universal Unicode codec, us

-- no debconf information

---End Message---
---BeginMessage---
I installed a new code version on packages.debian.org today and I
believe it fixes the following bugs:

#87725: packages.debian.org: suggesting new links to access package web
pages 

Package URLs don't need to include the section anymore.

#364312: www.debian.org: new packages.d.o/changelog:$PACKAGE doesn't
work with libraries 

The changelog package map is now updated more reliably.

#402911: md5sum is part of the url of packages.debian.org

The download page now gets all information directly from the database.

#335011: www.debian.org: packages.debian.org isn't dynamic 

Most of the content of packages.debian.org is now generated
dynamically. Update times should get reduced dramatically.

#354920: Symlinks for release numbers and codenames on
packages.debian.org 

packages.d.o now uses codenames by default and accepts
suite names and version numbers as aliases

Gruesse,
-- 
Frank Lichtenheld [EMAIL PROTECTED]
www: http://www.djpig.de/
---End Message---

Bug#429930: packages.d.o: version information outdated for stable on index page

[Marcin Owsiany]

Package: www.debian.org
Severity: normal

http://packages.debian.org/src:ekg shows 1:1.5+20050411-5 in stable,
while http://packages.debian.org/stable/source/ekg shows the correct
version, which was uploaded almost a year ago..


-- System Information:
Debian Release: 4.0
  APT prefers unstable
  APT policy: (500, 'unstable'), (500, 'stable'), (1, 'experimental')
Architecture: i386 (i686)
Shell:  /bin/sh linked to /bin/bash
Kernel: Linux 2.6.18-4-686
Locale: LANG=pl_PL, LC_CTYPE=pl_PL (charmap=ISO-8859-2)


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Bug#429930: marked as done (packages.d.o: version information outdated for stable on index page)

[Debian Bug Tracking System]

Your message dated Thu, 21 Jun 2007 15:31:16 +0200
with message-id [EMAIL PROTECTED]
and subject line Bug#429930: packages.d.o: version information outdated for 
stable on index page
has caused the attached Bug report to be marked as done.

This means that you claim that the problem has been dealt with.
If this is not the case it is now your responsibility to reopen the
Bug report if necessary, and/or fix the problem forthwith.

(NB: If you are a system administrator and have no idea what I am
talking about this indicates a serious mail system misconfiguration
somewhere.  Please contact me immediately.)

Debian bug tracking system administrator
(administrator, Debian Bugs database)

---BeginMessage---
Package: www.debian.org
Severity: normal

http://packages.debian.org/src:ekg shows 1:1.5+20050411-5 in stable,
while http://packages.debian.org/stable/source/ekg shows the correct
version, which was uploaded almost a year ago..


-- System Information:
Debian Release: 4.0
  APT prefers unstable
  APT policy: (500, 'unstable'), (500, 'stable'), (1, 'experimental')
Architecture: i386 (i686)
Shell:  /bin/sh linked to /bin/bash
Kernel: Linux 2.6.18-4-686
Locale: LANG=pl_PL, LC_CTYPE=pl_PL (charmap=ISO-8859-2)

---End Message---
---BeginMessage---
On Thu, Jun 21, 2007 at 11:32:22AM +0100, Marcin Owsiany wrote:
 http://packages.debian.org/src:ekg shows 1:1.5+20050411-5 in stable,
 while http://packages.debian.org/stable/source/ekg shows the correct
 version, which was uploaded almost a year ago..

Fixed.

Thanks and Gruesse,
-- 
Frank Lichtenheld [EMAIL PROTECTED]
www: http://www.djpig.de/
---End Message---

packages.d.o: amd64 is now an official arch (was: 404 for packages)

[Simon Paillard]

Hello Simon,

On Thu, May 03, 2007 at 11:54:47AM +0200, Simon Schoar wrote:
 on the Package Download Selection page for linux-image-2.6.18-4-amd64
 
 http://packages.debian.org/cgi-bin/download.pl?arch=amd64file=pool%2Fupdates%2Fmain%2Fl%2Flinux-2.6%2Flinux-image-2.6.18-4-amd64_2.6.18.dfsg.1-12etch1_amd64.debmd5sum=54b74bc3ba1204317c68bdf7a0d017e1arch=amd64type=unofficial
 
 all download mirrors lead to 404s.

Thanks again for the notice.

The fact that amd64 is now an official architecture hosted by official
mirrors was not taken into account.

The packages.d.o CVS has just been updated to change this behaviour.

if (($a =~ /^kfreebsd/) ||
-   (($env-{distribution} eq stable) 
+   (($env-{distribution} eq oldstable) 
$a eq 'amd64')) {
$unofficial = ' '.gettext( '(unofficial port)' );
$package_page .= amp;type=unofficial;

You should be able to notice the change in the next days.
Frank, is a forced rebuild needed ?

Regards,

-- 
Simon Paillard


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]