[pkg-go] Bug#872293: nmu: loads of golang stuff

[Paul Tagliamonte]

Package: release.debian.org
User: release.debian@packages.debian.org
Usertags: binnmu
Severity: normal
X-Debbugs-CC: pkg-go-maintainers@lists.alioth.debian.org
thanks

Howdy, release!

Due to the way that Go packages are built, I've started keeping an eye
on packages that were built using an out of date version of another
corner of the archive.

I've written a script that generates a list of things to binNMU, but
I've only just written it on the flight back from DebConf, and I am not
super sure of it yet.

So, here's a list of some things that look sensible by eye. I've got
a *lot* more, so if this turns out OK, I'll send another bug with more.

  nmu sia . any . -m 'out of date'
  nmu prometheus-node-exporter . any . -m 'out of date'
  nmu go-md2man . any . -m 'out of date'
  nmu webhook . any . -m 'out of date'
  nmu kcptun . any . -m 'out of date'
  nmu acbuild . any . -m 'out of date'
  nmu notary . any . -m 'out of date'
  nmu dh-make-golang . any . -m 'out of date'
  nmu robustirc-bridge . any . -m 'out of date'
  nmu runc . any . -m 'out of date'
  nmu prometheus . any . -m 'out of date'
  nmu skydns . any . -m 'out of date'
  nmu gb . any . -m 'out of date'
  nmu golang-golang-x-tools . any . -m 'out of date'
  nmu systemd-docker . any . -m 'out of date'
  nmu golang-github-xordataexchange-crypt . any . -m 'out of date'
  nmu abci . any . -m 'out of date'
  nmu prometheus-varnish-exporter . any . -m 'out of date'
  nmu gosu . any . -m 'out of date'
  nmu rclone . any . -m 'out of date'
  nmu docker-registry . any . -m 'out of date'
  nmu golang-petname . any . -m 'out of date'
  nmu prometheus-mongodb-exporter . any . -m 'out of date'
  nmu prometheus-mysqld-exporter . any . -m 'out of date'
  nmu consul . any . -m 'out of date'
  nmu minica . any . -m 'out of date'
  nmu gitlab-ci-multi-runner . any . -m 'out of date'
  nmu ratt . any . -m 'out of date'

Thank you!
  Paul

___
Pkg-go-maintainers mailing list
Pkg-go-maintainers@lists.alioth.debian.org
http://lists.alioth.debian.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pkg-go-maintainers

[pkg-go] Bug#871447: Bug#870643: Bug#870643: golang-github-pierrec-lz4-dev: please split off test data

[Paul Tagliamonte]

Ah yeah, of course! Thanks for caring about the archive size :)

Yeah, most people work off git clones (via `go get`) in a GOPATH
that's usually per-project

Paul


On Tue, Aug 8, 2017 at 11:21 AM, Aaron M. Ucko <u...@debian.org> wrote:
> Paul Tagliamonte <paul...@debian.org> writes:
>
>> As with the other bug, I don't see the point in this. This package is
>> used as a Build-Dependency, and not used by either end-users, or
>> developers working on Go source code on Debian, so splitting this off
>> will add space in the archive, and add a lot of complexity.
>
> Hi, Paul.
>
> Thanks for clarifying; I'd thought there was more of a use case for
> having these packages installed locally.  Does everyone just use private
> GitHub checkouts?
>
> --
> Aaron M. Ucko, KB1CJC (amu at alum.mit.edu, ucko at debian.org)
> http://www.mit.edu/~amu/ | http://stuff.mit.edu/cgi/finger/?a...@monk.mit.edu
>
> ___
> Pkg-go-maintainers mailing list
> Pkg-go-maintainers@lists.alioth.debian.org
> http://lists.alioth.debian.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pkg-go-maintainers



-- 
:wq

___
Pkg-go-maintainers mailing list
Pkg-go-maintainers@lists.alioth.debian.org
http://lists.alioth.debian.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pkg-go-maintainers

[pkg-go] Bug#871448: Bug#871448: golang-github-mattn-go-sqlite3-dev: please unbundle SQLite

[Paul Tagliamonte]

Unvendoring a code copy from shipping in a binary deb is a good idea
-- thanks for the bug! Doubly so with sqlite.

However, I don't see the point in removing it from the source if it's
at all anywhere close to more work to remove it. It's DFSG free and
it's not a huge deal to keep in source -- honestly, I'd rather keep
deltas with upstream minimal with source trees.

On Mon, Aug 7, 2017 at 11:15 PM, Aaron M. Ucko  wrote:
> Package: golang-github-mattn-go-sqlite3-dev
> Version: 1.2.0+git20170710.100.47fc4e5~dfsg1-1
> Severity: normal
>
> golang-github-mattn-go-sqlite3-dev now includes a full copy of the
> SQLite3 amalgamation, roughly 7.5 MB in size.  Per Policy 4.13, please
> omit it from the binary package, and consider dropping it from the
> source package (which you're evidently already repacking) as well.
>
> Thanks!
>
> -- System Information:
> Debian Release: buster/sid
>   APT prefers testing
>   APT policy: (500, 'testing'), (500, 'stable'), (300, 'unstable')
> Architecture: amd64 (x86_64)
> Foreign Architectures: i386, x32
>
> Kernel: Linux 4.11.0-2-amd64 (SMP w/4 CPU cores)
> Locale: LANG=en_US.UTF-8, LC_CTYPE=en_US.UTF-8 (charmap=UTF-8), 
> LANGUAGE=en_US.UTF-8 (charmap=UTF-8)
> Shell: /bin/sh linked to /bin/dash
> Init: systemd (via /run/systemd/system)
>
> Versions of packages golang-github-mattn-go-sqlite3-dev depends on:
> ii  libsqlite3-dev  3.19.3-3
>
> golang-github-mattn-go-sqlite3-dev recommends no packages.
>
> golang-github-mattn-go-sqlite3-dev suggests no packages.
>
> -- no debconf information
>
> ___
> Pkg-go-maintainers mailing list
> Pkg-go-maintainers@lists.alioth.debian.org
> http://lists.alioth.debian.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pkg-go-maintainers



-- 
:wq

___
Pkg-go-maintainers mailing list
Pkg-go-maintainers@lists.alioth.debian.org
http://lists.alioth.debian.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pkg-go-maintainers

[pkg-go] Bug#870643: Bug#870643: golang-github-pierrec-lz4-dev: please split off test data

[Paul Tagliamonte]

As with the other bug, I don't see the point in this. This package is
used as a Build-Dependency, and not used by either end-users, or
developers working on Go source code on Debian, so splitting this off
will add space in the archive, and add a lot of complexity.

I'm against splitting this unless there's seriously good cause.

   Paul

On Thu, Aug 3, 2017 at 2:06 PM, Aaron M. Ucko  wrote:
> Package: golang-github-pierrec-lz4-dev
> Version: 0.0~git20170519.0.5a3d224-1
> Severity: minor
>
> The golang-github-pierrec-lz4-dev binary package now consists of 9+ MB
> of test data and a much smaller quantity of actual code.  I acknowledge
> the value of automated regression testing, but would appreciate it if
> you could please split the test data into a separate binary package.
>
> Thanks!
>
> -- System Information:
> Debian Release: buster/sid
>   APT prefers testing
>   APT policy: (500, 'testing'), (500, 'stable'), (300, 'unstable')
> Architecture: amd64 (x86_64)
> Foreign Architectures: i386, x32
>
> Kernel: Linux 4.11.0-2-amd64 (SMP w/4 CPU cores)
> Locale: LANG=en_US.UTF-8, LC_CTYPE=en_US.UTF-8 (charmap=UTF-8), 
> LANGUAGE=en_US.UTF-8 (charmap=UTF-8)
> Shell: /bin/sh linked to /bin/dash
> Init: systemd (via /run/systemd/system)
>
> -- no debconf information
>
> ___
> Pkg-go-maintainers mailing list
> Pkg-go-maintainers@lists.alioth.debian.org
> http://lists.alioth.debian.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pkg-go-maintainers



-- 
:wq

___
Pkg-go-maintainers mailing list
Pkg-go-maintainers@lists.alioth.debian.org
http://lists.alioth.debian.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pkg-go-maintainers

[pkg-go] Bug#871447: Bug#871447: golang-github-gogo-protobuf-dev: please split off test data

[Paul Tagliamonte]

Seeing as how these are development headers for building go debian
packages (as a Build-Dependency), and not
something users would ever install (including go developers working on
Debian, since these system -dev packages aren't useful to use there
either), I don't see the added complexity worth the space savings.

In fact, splitting this off may even result in more archive space to
store another .deb. I'd be against splitting this package unless there
was seriously good cause.

   Paul

On Mon, Aug 7, 2017 at 10:35 PM, Aaron M. Ucko  wrote:
> Package: golang-github-gogo-protobuf-dev
> Version: 0.3+git20170120.144.265e960d-1
> Severity: minor
>
> Following up on #870643, I see that several other go packages, notably
> golang-github-gogo-protobuf-dev, contain much more test data (nearly
> 22M in this case) than actual code.  Once again, I acknowledge the
> value of automated regression testing, but would appreciate it if you
> could please split the test data into a separate binary package.
>
> Thanks!
>
> -- System Information:
> Debian Release: buster/sid
>   APT prefers testing
>   APT policy: (500, 'testing'), (500, 'stable'), (300, 'unstable')
> Architecture: amd64 (x86_64)
> Foreign Architectures: i386, x32
>
> Kernel: Linux 4.11.0-2-amd64 (SMP w/4 CPU cores)
> Locale: LANG=en_US.UTF-8, LC_CTYPE=en_US.UTF-8 (charmap=UTF-8), 
> LANGUAGE=en_US.UTF-8 (charmap=UTF-8)
> Shell: /bin/sh linked to /bin/dash
> Init: systemd (via /run/systemd/system)
>
> golang-github-gogo-protobuf-dev depends on no packages.
>
> Versions of packages golang-github-gogo-protobuf-dev recommends:
> ii  gogoprotobuf  0.3+git20170120.144.265e960d-1
>
> golang-github-gogo-protobuf-dev suggests no packages.
>
> -- no debconf information
>
> ___
> Pkg-go-maintainers mailing list
> Pkg-go-maintainers@lists.alioth.debian.org
> http://lists.alioth.debian.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pkg-go-maintainers



-- 
:wq

___
Pkg-go-maintainers mailing list
Pkg-go-maintainers@lists.alioth.debian.org
http://lists.alioth.debian.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pkg-go-maintainers

Re: [pkg-go] golang-pault-go-technicolor_0.0~git20170523.0.048edec-1_amd64.changes REJECTED

[Paul Tagliamonte]

On Mon, Jul 24, 2017 at 06:00:10PM +, Thorsten Alteholz wrote:
> 
> Hi Paul,
> 
> long time ago, when I was a little boy, I heard the legend of a hero, who
> always complained about bad upstreams that don't respect the one and only
> requirement of the Expat license. And now I see this package ...

Yet another reason to make it native ;)

>   Thorsten

Thanks, Thorsten! Sent an updated commit to tianon, maybe he'll be nice
enough to responsor this :)


   Paul


signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
___
Pkg-go-maintainers mailing list
Pkg-go-maintainers@lists.alioth.debian.org
http://lists.alioth.debian.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pkg-go-maintainers

[pkg-go] Bug#839109: Bug#839109: closed by Paul Tagliamonte <paul...@gmail.com> (RE: dh-golang: Possibly wrong XS- prefix for Go-Import-Path field)

[Paul Tagliamonte]

Control: owner -1 !
thanks

On Tue, Oct 25, 2016 at 05:00:27PM +0200, Guillem Jover wrote:
> Then, in that case, I'd appreciate if the function and its rationale
> could be documented instead in the "Debian Go packaging policy". :)

Super sensible, great idea. I'll own this. Thanks, Guillem!

> Thanks,
> Guillem

   Paul


signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
___
Pkg-go-maintainers mailing list
Pkg-go-maintainers@lists.alioth.debian.org
http://lists.alioth.debian.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pkg-go-maintainers

Re: [pkg-go] Bug#830209: Bugs: "accesses the internet during build" -- strongly disagree on severity

[Paul Tagliamonte]

On Tue, Jul 12, 2016 at 07:23:00AM +1000, Dmitry Smirnov wrote:
> I think understand your implications. I'm doing shitty work, you mean.
> May I suggest you to maybe shut up?

Dmitry, this is 100% not appropriate.

> Thanks for criticism but I really got enough of it from you already.
>
> > Please, reconsider your attitude.
> 
> I'd like to recommend you to do the same.

OK, everyone stop. Jesus. What the hell is going on here. I was just
talking the other day about how Debian isn't the same Debian from the
90's, and people don't take to slogging it out on lists anymore.

Clearly, I'm wrong. This is embarrassing. I'm ashamed of this list
right now.

Honestly, it makes me want to leave this team and never come back. I
don't need to spend my free time in crossfire.

> I'm starting to feel pissed off by your rude passive aggressive attitude and 
> nitpicking...

I'm starting to get pissed off that this list is now an acceptible place
to act like this.

Grow up, everyone - act like adults and at least pretend to be nice.

Someone just commit the fix to master and be done with it.


FWIW, with my ftpteam hat on, this may not be a strict violation, but
depending on software outside main during build (dpkg-buildpackage
build) means it's not fit for main.

We can debate semantics all day (if the test suite or things not shipped
in the binary deb count as part of the build) if we want, but it's worth
fixing, for no reason other than hygene.


There, there's your executive decision, can we move on and put on adult
clothes today? Don't we have better things to do with our time?

   Paul


signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
___
Pkg-go-maintainers mailing list
Pkg-go-maintainers@lists.alioth.debian.org
http://lists.alioth.debian.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pkg-go-maintainers

[pkg-go] Bug#824089: RM: golang-clockwork-dev -- ROM; replaced by golang-github-jonboulle-clockwork

[Paul Tagliamonte]

Package: ftp.debian.org
Severity: important
thanks

golang-clockwork-dev was replaced by something with a fancier source and
binary name.

I'll remove this in a minute.

 Paul


signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
___
Pkg-go-maintainers mailing list
Pkg-go-maintainers@lists.alioth.debian.org
http://lists.alioth.debian.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pkg-go-maintainers

[pkg-go] Mass Golang Update: Vcs-Git from git:// to https:// in Git

[Paul Tagliamonte]

Hey all,

[BCC'ing maintainers from below]

I scripted some of it, but I spot checked most of it. Below are the
packages I touched. dd-list follows (Also, a few bugs since the Vcs repo
wasn't the same as the source name (anymore - likely rename?))

I updated the following packages:

E: Unknown package: golang-pb
E: Unknown package: golang-github-jonboulle-clockwork
E: Unknown package: golang-snappy-go
E: Unknown package: golang-bugsnag-go
E: Unknown package: golang-goyaml
E: Unknown package: golang-gosqlite
E: Unknown package: golang-gocheck
E: Unknown package: golang-go.net
E: Unknown package: golang-revel

Please double check your packages!

Alexandre Viau 
   golang-collectd (U)
   golang-github-bmizerany-pat (U)
   golang-github-cloudfoundry-gosigar (U)
   golang-github-hashicorp-raft (U)
   golang-github-hashicorp-raft-boltdb (U)
   golang-github-mattn-go-sqlite3 (U)
   golang-github-mitchellh-cli (U)
   golang-github-opencontainers-specs (U)
   golang-github-rainycape-unidecode (U)
   golang-github-streadway-amqp (U)
   golang-github-ugorji-go-msgpack (U)
   golang-gopkg-eapache-queue.v1 (U)
   golang-gopkg-fatih-pool.v2 (U)
   golang-gopkg-tomb.v1 (U)
   golang-gopkg-tomb.v2 (U)

Alexandre Viau 
   golang-github-armon-go-metrics (U)
   golang-github-datadog-datadog-go (U)
   golang-github-dgryski-go-bits (U)
   golang-github-dgryski-go-bitstream (U)
   golang-github-google-go-querystring (U)
   golang-github-hashicorp-atlas-go (U)
   golang-github-hashicorp-go-version (U)
   golang-github-influxdb-enterprise-client (U)
   golang-github-kimor79-gollectd (U)
   golang-github-mitchellh-go-fs (U)
   golang-github-mitchellh-go-vnc (U)
   golang-github-mitchellh-multistep (U)
   golang-github-mitchellh-panicwrap (U)
   golang-github-mitchellh-prefixedio (U)
   golang-github-mitchellh-reflectwalk (U)
   golang-github-nu7hatch-gouuid (U)
   golang-github-peterh-liner (U)
   golang-github-tent-http-link-go (U)
   golang-github-ugorji-go-codec (U)
   golang-gopkg-asn1-ber.v1 (U)
   golang-gopkg-xmlpath.v2 (U)

Andrew Starr-Bochicchio 
   golang-github-mitchellh-go-ps (U)

Anthony Fok 
   golang-github-armon-consul-api (U)
   golang-github-inconshreveable-mousetrap (U)
   golang-github-juju-ratelimit (U)
   golang-github-kr-fs (U)
   golang-github-shurcool-sanitized-anchor-name (U)
   golang-github-yosssi-ace-proxy (U)

Daniel Stender 
   golang-github-digitalocean-godo (U)
   golang-github-hashicorp-atlas-go (U)
   golang-github-mitchellh-iochan (U)
   golang-github-pierrec-lz4 (U)
   gox (U)

Debian Go Packaging Team 
   consul
   dh-golang
   docker-libkv
   gocode
   golang-ginkgo
   golang-github-adroll-goamz
   golang-github-appc-goaci
   golang-github-armon-circbuf
   golang-github-armon-consul-api
   golang-github-armon-go-metrics
   golang-github-armon-go-radix
   golang-github-blang-semver
   golang-github-bmizerany-pat
   golang-github-cheggaaa-pb
   golang-github-clusterhq-flocker-go
   golang-github-codegangsta-negroni
   golang-github-coreos-gexpect
   golang-github-coreos-go-oidc
   golang-github-coreos-go-tspi
   golang-github-coreos-ioprogress
   golang-github-cyberdelia-go-metrics-graphite
   golang-github-cznic-b
   golang-github-cznic-bufs
   golang-github-cznic-mathutil
   golang-github-cznic-ql
   golang-github-cznic-zappy
   golang-github-data-dog-go-sqlmock
   golang-github-datadog-datadog-go
   golang-github-daviddengcn-go-colortext
   golang-github-deckarep-golang-set
   golang-github-dgrijalva-jwt-go
   golang-github-dgryski-go-bits
   golang-github-dgryski-go-bitstream
   golang-github-digitalocean-godo
   golang-github-docker-engine-api
   golang-github-docker-go-connections
   golang-github-docker-go-units
   golang-github-docker-libnetwork
   golang-github-dustin-go-humanize
   golang-github-dvsekhvalnov-jose2go
   golang-github-elazarl-go-bindata-assetfs
   golang-github-elazarl-goproxy
   golang-github-endophage-gotuf
   golang-github-evanphx-json-patch
   golang-github-fluent-fluent-logger-golang
   golang-github-ghodss-yaml
   golang-github-go-ini-ini
   golang-github-golang-groupcache
   golang-github-golang-snappy
   golang-github-google-go-querystring
   golang-github-google-gofuzz
   golang-github-graylog2-go-gelf
   golang-github-hashicorp-atlas-go
   golang-github-hashicorp-errwrap
   golang-github-hashicorp-go-checkpoint
   golang-github-hashicorp-go-cleanhttp
   golang-github-hashicorp-go-getter
   golang-github-hashicorp-go-immutable-radix
   golang-github-hashicorp-go-memdb
   golang-github-hashicorp-go-multierror
   golang-github-hashicorp-go-plugin
   golang-github-hashicorp-go-reap
   golang-github-hashicorp-go-syslog
   golang-github-hashicorp-go-uuid
   golang-github-hashicorp-go-version
   golang-github-hashicorp-golang-lru
   golang-github-hashicorp-hcl
   golang-github-hashicorp-hil
   

Re: [pkg-go] RFC: Enhancements to dh-golang

[Paul Tagliamonte]

Thank you!
On May 15, 2016 8:30 PM, "Martín Ferrari"  wrote:

> On 15/05/16 19:21, Michael Stapelberg wrote:
> > I’m not opposed, please feel free to push your changes.
>
> So I have just uploaded 1.17:
>
>
> dh-golang (1.17) unstable; urgency=medium
>
>   * Team upload.
>   * Move dh-golang to the pkg-go team repository.
> - Update Maintainer and Uploaders.
> - Update Vcs-* fields.
>   * Update Standards-Version with no changes.
>   * Export DH_GOLANG_INSTALL_EXTRA with a list of space-separated paths to
> copy to the build dir, for tests and other files not automatically
> installed.
>   * Add --no-source and --no-binaries options to install target.
>   * Display a debug message when copying files to the build tree.
>
>  -- Martín Ferrari   Mon, 16 May 2016 01:08:06 +0100
>
>
> --
> Martín Ferrari (Tincho)
>
> ___
> Pkg-go-maintainers mailing list
> Pkg-go-maintainers@lists.alioth.debian.org
> http://lists.alioth.debian.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pkg-go-maintainers
>
___
Pkg-go-maintainers mailing list
Pkg-go-maintainers@lists.alioth.debian.org
http://lists.alioth.debian.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pkg-go-maintainers

Re: [pkg-go] Processing of golang-github-jonboulle-clockwork_0.0~git20141217-3_amd64.changes

[Paul Tagliamonte]

Erm, this will get rejected; this will show source new, and I didn't
-sa; d'oh. I'll reupload once we get the reject.


On Tue, May 10, 2016 at 02:30:57AM +, Debian FTP Masters wrote:
> golang-github-jonboulle-clockwork_0.0~git20141217-3_amd64.changes uploaded 
> successfully to localhost
> along with the files:
>   golang-github-jonboulle-clockwork_0.0~git20141217-3.dsc
>   golang-github-jonboulle-clockwork_0.0~git20141217-3.debian.tar.xz
>   golang-github-jonboulle-clockwork-dev_0.0~git20141217-3_all.deb
> 
> Greetings,
> 
>   Your Debian queue daemon (running on host franck.debian.org)
> 
> ___
> Pkg-go-maintainers mailing list
> Pkg-go-maintainers@lists.alioth.debian.org
> http://lists.alioth.debian.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pkg-go-maintainers


signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
___
Pkg-go-maintainers mailing list
Pkg-go-maintainers@lists.alioth.debian.org
http://lists.alioth.debian.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pkg-go-maintainers

Re: [pkg-go] Package renames for clockwork and go-semver packages

[Paul Tagliamonte]

> I'm proposing to rename the binary packages thusly:
> 
> golang-github-coreos-semver-dev -> golang-github-coreos-go-semver-dev
> as the package name is "go-semver" and not just "semver".
> 
> golang-jonboulle-clockwork-dev ->
> golang-github-jonboulle-clockwork-dev as we are missing the vendor
> name "github".

Both SGTM; have .dscs ready or a package prepared?

> Luckily now is a good time to make this change as existing uploaded
> packages depend on the old package name via a conditional dependency
> (oldname | newname) and so don't need changing.  There are a few cases
> where the RHS new name needs to be updated and I've checked in fixes
> for this already.

So on your game!

> I *think* this is all do-able without having to create any
> transitional packages but it would be nice to get some feedback on
> this.

Sounds fine here; I don't think we had to do transitional packages for
other renames

> Also I think I might need to ask the FTP masters to remove the
> old binary packages once the changes have been uploaded.

Yeah, I can take care of that on the backend too, just hit me up once
it's fixed.

> Tim.

cheers,
  paul


signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
___
Pkg-go-maintainers mailing list
Pkg-go-maintainers@lists.alioth.debian.org
http://lists.alioth.debian.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pkg-go-maintainers

Re: [pkg-go] Security support for packages written in Go

[Paul Tagliamonte]

We can change it to XSB-Go-Import-Path, but it only really applies for the
-dev packages; so it might need some fiddling to do right, yeah. I'll think
a bit more about it.

We could also likely build up mappings for Source -> import path, and index
from Binary control Source -> Source -> Import Path, but that's a bit
janky, yeah.



On Wed, Apr 6, 2016 at 2:52 PM, Peter Colberg <pe...@colberg.org> wrote:

> On Tue, Apr 05, 2016 at 06:05:21PM -0400, Paul Tagliamonte wrote:
> > Love this idea, I wonder if the Import-Path XS header could help resolve
> > packages in a proof of concept
>
> If I am not mistaken, the XS-Go-Import-Path cannot be queried with
> dpkg-query since it is a field in the source package. What do you
> think of adding an XB-Go-Import-Path to golang-*-dev packages?
>
> Querying this field for 'golang-*-dev' to match the import paths
> output by `go list` would appear to be a lot faster than invoking
> `dpkg -S /usr/share/gocode/src/…` for each import path.
>
> Peter
>
> ___
> Pkg-go-maintainers mailing list
> Pkg-go-maintainers@lists.alioth.debian.org
> http://lists.alioth.debian.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pkg-go-maintainers
>



-- 
:wq
___
Pkg-go-maintainers mailing list
Pkg-go-maintainers@lists.alioth.debian.org
http://lists.alioth.debian.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pkg-go-maintainers

Re: [pkg-go] [pkg-golang-devel] Security support for packages written in Go

[Paul Tagliamonte]

I don't think B-U is the appropriate place for this. This means if we
didn't change anything in dh-golang, we'd need to binNMU the package before
we can decruft the sources that have a newer versions, dak side.

With an ftp hat on, I think that's not right. Having the entire build
closure in it would be useful, but B-U is also used by dak to keep sources
we still have binaries related to in the archive.

We could add it as some sort of binary control header, but that's also
annoying. Less annoying, though.

On Wed, Apr 6, 2016 at 1:33 PM, Florian Weimer  wrote:

> * Tianon Gravi:
>
> > On 5 April 2016 at 14:47, Florian Weimer  wrote:
> >> We currently need these intermediate dependencies to discover all the
> >> affected applications.  So perhaps dh_golang needs to construct the
> >> transitive closure, instead of listing just immediate build
> >> dependencies.  If we don't want to put this information into the
> >> Packages file, maybe we can keep it in the separate debuginfo
> >> packages.
> >
> > It _should_ be possible to adjust dh_golang to use "go list" in order
> > to determine the exact full set of Go packages which the application
> > code depends on, and then use _that_ list to cross-reference the files
> > in /usr/share/gocode to get the real list of packages for Built-Using
> > ( haven't verified whether it's feasible for dh_golang to do this, but
> > it's pretty similar to how it's currently using "go list" to gather
> > the list of packages to actually build).
>
> Please also add the version of the dh-golang package, so that we know
> what to rebuild if there's a bug in the Built-Using generation.
>
> ___
> Pkg-go-maintainers mailing list
> Pkg-go-maintainers@lists.alioth.debian.org
> http://lists.alioth.debian.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pkg-go-maintainers
>



-- 
:wq
___
Pkg-go-maintainers mailing list
Pkg-go-maintainers@lists.alioth.debian.org
http://lists.alioth.debian.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pkg-go-maintainers

Re: [pkg-go] Security support for packages written in Go

[Paul Tagliamonte]

On Wed, Apr 06, 2016 at 12:37:10PM +1000, Dmitry Smirnov wrote:
> I feel your pain. Over last 9 months I've invested even greater effort to 
> packaging of containers related Golang software.
> 
> Yet we can provide anything we want to users of stable releases through 
> official backports:
> 
> http://backports.debian.org/

| Backports are packages taken from the next Debian release (called
| "testing"), adjusted and recompiled for usage on Debian stable.

So my confusion here is that you don't want to see them in Stable, but
you do want to see them in testing (and backports). This isn't what
testing is for, of course :)

This, to me, feels like more of a systemic issue than this small side
conversation.

I don't see anything inherent about Go that makes it unsupportable.

I *do* see more software being developed in a way that makes it nearly
impossible for Debian to distribute. This, however, is a much bigger
conversation.

Cheers,
  Paul


signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
___
Pkg-go-maintainers mailing list
Pkg-go-maintainers@lists.alioth.debian.org
http://lists.alioth.debian.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pkg-go-maintainers

Re: [pkg-go] golang-yaml.v2_0.0~git20160301.0.a83829b-1_amd64.changes REJECTED

[Paul Tagliamonte]

On Wed, Apr 06, 2016 at 09:52:57AM +1000, Dmitry Smirnov wrote:
> Change as simple as 's{~}{+}' should fix it. :)

"fix". I'm aware of how to make dak accept it and make it sort above it
using the dpkg version compare. Thanks for that tip, Dmitry.

> > I wonder what happens when they release version 0.0, now.
> 
> If ever. ;)

But you see, that's not my point. Really, in reality, *semantically*,
we're shipping a release *less than* 0.0. To say we're shipping something
semantically *newer* 0.0 is wrong. ~ means before, like an RC. + means
after, like fixing a broken already uploaded non-free release to main
with +dfsg.


Anyway, I realize you don't like this because it doesn't git tag right,
but I'm going to keep saying + is less correct than ~. You'll likely
have to live with this fact of life.

I hope you can empathize with my love of expressing things semantically,
and I hope you can also understand this wasn't me going around claiming
anyone is a bad developer for doing this.


I *am* saying it's semantically wrong, and I'll continue to complain about
this by bitching to the list once in a while.


  Paul


signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
___
Pkg-go-maintainers mailing list
Pkg-go-maintainers@lists.alioth.debian.org
http://lists.alioth.debian.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pkg-go-maintainers

Re: [pkg-go] golang-yaml.v2_0.0~git20160301.0.a83829b-1_amd64.changes REJECTED

[Paul Tagliamonte]

Wrong email, re-sending

-- Forwarded message --
From: Paul Tagliamonte <paul...@opensource.org>
To: 
Cc: Debian Go Packaging Team <pkg-go-maintainers@lists.alioth.debian.org>, Tim 
Potter <t...@hpe.com>, paul...@debian.org
Date: Tue, 5 Apr 2016 19:21:16 -0400
Subject: Re: golang-yaml.v2_0.0~git20160301.0.a83829b-1_amd64.changes REJECTED
On Tue, Apr 05, 2016 at 11:19:57PM +, Debian FTP Masters wrote:
> Version check failed:
> Your upload included the source package golang-yaml.v2, version 
> 0.0~git20160301.0.a83829b-1,
> however testing already has version 0.0+git20150627.7ad95dd-1.
> Uploads to unstable must have a higher version than present in testing.

Sigh. Someone uploaded a version that's silly. We'll have to damage this
package accordingly.

   Paul



signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
___
Pkg-go-maintainers mailing list
Pkg-go-maintainers@lists.alioth.debian.org
http://lists.alioth.debian.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pkg-go-maintainers

Re: [pkg-go] Security support for packages written in Go

[Paul Tagliamonte]

Love this idea, I wonder if the Import-Path XS header could help resolve
packages in a proof of concept
On Apr 5, 2016 5:54 PM, "Tianon Gravi"  wrote:

> On 5 April 2016 at 14:47, Florian Weimer  wrote:
> > We currently need these intermediate dependencies to discover all the
> > affected applications.  So perhaps dh_golang needs to construct the
> > transitive closure, instead of listing just immediate build
> > dependencies.  If we don't want to put this information into the
> > Packages file, maybe we can keep it in the separate debuginfo
> > packages.
>
> It _should_ be possible to adjust dh_golang to use "go list" in order
> to determine the exact full set of Go packages which the application
> code depends on, and then use _that_ list to cross-reference the files
> in /usr/share/gocode to get the real list of packages for Built-Using
> ( haven't verified whether it's feasible for dh_golang to do this, but
> it's pretty similar to how it's currently using "go list" to gather
> the list of packages to actually build).
>
> ♥,
> - Tianon
>   4096R / B42F 6819 007F 00F8 8E36  4FD4 036A 9C25 BF35 7DD4
>
> ___
> Pkg-go-maintainers mailing list
> Pkg-go-maintainers@lists.alioth.debian.org
> http://lists.alioth.debian.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pkg-go-maintainers
___
Pkg-go-maintainers mailing list
Pkg-go-maintainers@lists.alioth.debian.org
http://lists.alioth.debian.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pkg-go-maintainers

Re: [pkg-go] consul

[Paul Tagliamonte]

On Mon, Mar 7, 2016 at 1:42 PM, Dmitry Smirnov <only...@debian.org> wrote:

> On Mon, 7 Mar 2016 01:28:09 PM Paul Tagliamonte wrote:
> > ~ is meaningful to debian versions.
>
> To indicate "less" like in "~rc1" for pre-release versions.
>
>
> > Changing it because of the format the
> > source package is stored in seems wrong at best. ~ seems to be a fine
> > relation to use, + implies something else.
>
> I'm not sure what do you mean.
>

1.0~1 < 1.0 < 1.0+1

https://www.debian.org/doc/debian-policy/ch-controlfields.html#s-f-Version


>
>
> > >  * I could not recall (or find) what "ds" stands for. "dfsg" is
> > >
> > "debian source". It's used when you repack for non-DFSG reasons.
>
> Like when you remove free files shipped by other Debian packages?
>

Exactly!


>
> Do you reckon "ds" vs "dfsg" distiction is important?
>

It informs a lot of how I review or work with a package, yeah :)

It's "just a name", but names are important to me :)


>
> --
> Best wishes,
>  Dmitry Smirnov.
>
> ---
>
> Truth — Something somehow discreditable to someone.
> -- H. L. Mencken, 1949
>
>


-- 
:wq
___
Pkg-go-maintainers mailing list
Pkg-go-maintainers@lists.alioth.debian.org
http://lists.alioth.debian.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pkg-go-maintainers

Re: [pkg-go] consul

[Paul Tagliamonte]

I don't have a pony in this race, but here are my unsolicited thoughts:



> > I'm really curious about why "0.5.2~ds1-1" was switched to
> > "0.5.2+dfsg-1" -- can you elaborate on the reasoning behind the
> > change?
>
> Perhaps that is a silly change as I only have two minor reasons for that:
>
>  * elimination of "~" from version. "~" is not tag friendly.
>


~ is meaningful to debian versions. Changing it because of the format the
source package is stored in seems wrong at best. ~ seems to be a fine
relation to use, + implies something else.


>
>  * I could not recall (or find) what "ds" stands for. "dfsg" is
> non-ambiguous
> and apparently more traditional. Besides I don't like to use my initials in
> version. ;)
>

"debian source". It's used when you repack for non-DFSG reasons. DFSG
(+dfsg or ~dfsg) repacks are when something violates the DFSG and you need
to repack it.




> I hope you don't mind. I shall be happy to revert if my changes are not in
> line with your preferences.
>
> --
> Best wishes,
>  Dmitry Smirnov.
>


Cheers,
   Paul


>
> ---
>
> Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away.
> -- Philip K. Dick
>
> ___
> Pkg-go-maintainers mailing list
> Pkg-go-maintainers@lists.alioth.debian.org
> http://lists.alioth.debian.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pkg-go-maintainers
>



-- 
:wq
___
Pkg-go-maintainers mailing list
Pkg-go-maintainers@lists.alioth.debian.org
http://lists.alioth.debian.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pkg-go-maintainers

[pkg-go] Bug#806481: Bug#806481: Backport etcd to Jessie

[Paul Tagliamonte]

> I don't have any uploads anywhere, as I was just trying to do a build from
> the
> git repos of each repository.  I did read a bit over the steps to make
> things
> ready for backports, but I didn't try any of that yet.  Is it just a
> matter of
> changing the version number with an appropriate Changelog message?  If so,
> I
> can try starting with one to get the hang of it.  Is there any easy howtos
> for
>

Basically, yeah! Give one a shot and send it to me, and I can help make sure
everything looks great!


> beginners?  Most documentation I've seen is more reference material
> orientated, which I find a little hard to parse to get started.
>

Yeah, it's not great. Give it a best-whack and i'll provide some feedback,
it sounds like you're already doing it!


>
> If you want, I can stick my other files somewhere to download.  I don't
> know
> if they will be useful.
> --
> Matthew


Cheers,
  Paul



-- 
:wq
___
Pkg-go-maintainers mailing list
Pkg-go-maintainers@lists.alioth.debian.org
http://lists.alioth.debian.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pkg-go-maintainers

[pkg-go] Bug#806481: Bug#806481: Backport etcd to Jessie

[Paul Tagliamonte]

On Sat, Nov 28, 2015 at 03:40:19PM -0500, Matthew Dawson wrote:
> On November 28, 2015 03:14:16 PM Dmitry Smirnov wrote:
> > On Friday 27 November 2015 21:56:36 Paul Tagliamonte wrote:
> > > Mind if I do it?
> > 
> > Not at all, if you have time... I have no objections. :)
> > 
> > > After it's in Jessie, it might be easier to keep up to date, too.
> > 
> > Unfortunately I can't promise that I will be of help with maintaining
> > backport...
> Hi Paul,
> 
> If I can help with this effort, let me know as I'm also interested in having 
> etcd in Jessie.  I already started trying to get everything to compile 
> against 
> a stock Jessie, and was mostly successful.  To get everything working did 
> require a newer golang (1.4 in my case).  I'm not currently a Debian project 
> member, so I'm not sure how I can help.  Let me know either way.

Yay! Golang (as tianon noted) is in backports now!

I'd be happy to sponsor you work - are the source uploads anywhere I can
dget?

Thanks!
  Tag

> -- 
> Matthew




signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
___
Pkg-go-maintainers mailing list
Pkg-go-maintainers@lists.alioth.debian.org
http://lists.alioth.debian.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pkg-go-maintainers

[pkg-go] Bug#806481: Backport etcd to Jessie

[Paul Tagliamonte]

On Sat, Nov 28, 2015 at 12:19:54PM +1100, Dmitry Smirnov wrote:
> On Friday 27 November 2015 14:55:30 Paul Tagliamonte wrote:
> Hi Paul,
> 
> Without funding I won't be able to backport Etcd.
> A significant amount of work is required. I estimate that about 20 dependency 
> packages need to be backported as well. Frankly I doubt that the effort is 
> worth it -- etcd is a statically linked binary so it would work just fine if 
> installed straight from "testing" to Jessie (which could be facilitated by 
> trivial apt pinning). At least that's how I use etcd on Jessie at the 
> moment...

Understandable. Mind if I do it? After it's in Jessie, it might be
easier to keep up to date, too.

Cheers,
  Paul



signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
___
Pkg-go-maintainers mailing list
Pkg-go-maintainers@lists.alioth.debian.org
http://lists.alioth.debian.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pkg-go-maintainers

Re: [pkg-go] RFS: golang-github-bitly-simplejson

[Paul Tagliamonte]

To -alpha or ~alpha?
On Sep 13, 2015 1:03 PM, "Michael Stapelberg" <stapelb...@debian.org> wrote:

> • debian/* is licensed under GPL-2+, but upstream is MIT. Consider
> using the same license to avoid headaches when shipping patches.
>
> • The package does not build with gbp:
>
> /tmp/golang-github-bitly-go-simplejson master $ gbp buildpackage
> --git-builder='sbuild -v -As --dist=unstable'
> gbp:error: upstream/0.5.0-alpha_git20150401 is not a valid treeish
>
> On Fri, Sep 11, 2015 at 1:30 AM, Potter, Tim (Cloud Services)
> <timothy.pot...@hpe.com> wrote:
> > On 9 Sep 2015, at 2:07 pm, Paul Tagliamonte <paul...@debian.org> wrote:
> >>
> >> On Wed, Sep 09, 2015 at 03:46:41AM +, Potter, Tim (Cloud Services)
> wrote:
> >>> On 9 Sep 2015, at 1:34 pm, Paul Tagliamonte <paul...@debian.org>
> wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>> On Wed, Sep 09, 2015 at 03:28:59AM +, Potter, Tim (Cloud
> Services) wrote:
> >>>>> Hi everyone.  This package is required for bugsnag and I’ve just
> finished renaming
> >>>>> it and testing against the new naming policy.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Could someone please review and upload?
> >>>>
> >>>> Ah, your RFS was missing a -go :) -- package name is
> >>>> golang-github-bitly-go-simplejson for those at home -- as a result,
> your
> >>>> Vcs-* headers look a bit off :)
> >>>
> >>> Yes - sorry about that.  The extra -go is necessary.
> >>>
> >>> I've updated the Vcs-* fields now.
> >>
> >> Looks great. I spotted an issue where d/control claimed 0.4.3, source
> >> was from 0.5.0. Tim's on the job, just noting it for the channel. After
> >> that's clear, it looked good to me.
> >
> > I  investigated a bit and decided to rename the version number to
> 0.5.0-alpha to
> > reflect what’s in the code.  Good catch though.
> >
> > This should be ready for uploading now.
> >
> >
> > Thanks!
> >
> > Tim.
> > ___
> > Pkg-go-maintainers mailing list
> > Pkg-go-maintainers@lists.alioth.debian.org
> >
> http://lists.alioth.debian.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pkg-go-maintainers
>
>
>
> --
> Best regards,
> Michael
>
___
Pkg-go-maintainers mailing list
Pkg-go-maintainers@lists.alioth.debian.org
http://lists.alioth.debian.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pkg-go-maintainers

[pkg-go] Bug#798708: golang.*-dev packages should be arch:all

[Paul Tagliamonte]

Package: golang-gogoprotobuf-dev
Severity: wishlist
thanks

As discussed in the thread starting at
<55f1f19b.7000...@alexandreviau.net>, there's a very rough feeling that
golang-.*-dev packages ought to be arch:all, witih binaries split out.

Thoughts? Should we switch this package to arch:all?

Cheers,
  Paul


signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
___
Pkg-go-maintainers mailing list
Pkg-go-maintainers@lists.alioth.debian.org
http://lists.alioth.debian.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pkg-go-maintainers

Re: [pkg-go] Usage of Built-Using for dev packages

[Paul Tagliamonte]

On Fri, Sep 11, 2015 at 03:07:36PM -0400, Alexandre Viau wrote:
> About that, should -dev packages contain binaries? Would it be best that
> dev packages stay arch:all and ship their binaries in a separated package?

I tend to say "yes" - the -dev files aren't arch dependent, and shipping
the binary like that prevents it from being multiarch'd approprately,
which is a massive pain for anyone using it for 32 and 64 bit build on
the same host. Which is nearly no one, sure, but the point stands.

I'd be for shipping a binary seprately, like -tools or -bin for C
libraries.

Cheers,
  Paul


signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
___
Pkg-go-maintainers mailing list
Pkg-go-maintainers@lists.alioth.debian.org
http://lists.alioth.debian.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pkg-go-maintainers

Re: [pkg-go] May I upgrade golang-blackfriday, golang-testify, etc. to latest versions?

[Paul Tagliamonte]

On Tue, Sep 08, 2015 at 09:00:34AM +0200, Michael Stapelberg wrote:
> >   1. ... just go ahead and update them?  :-)
> 
> Yes.

Yesish. Yes, you should absolutely update them, but you should also
check all their reverse build dependencies to ensure that we don't cause
FTBFSs. Yo, sECuRE - is RATT ready for team use?

> >   2. Or should I first ask for permissions from the previous uploaders?
> 
> You should at least let them know, but team policy is that we don’t
> have such strict ownership. The packages are team-maintained for a
> reason.

Absolutely true. Just be careful of an upload before we know what might
trigger FTBFSs -- upstreams in Goland seem to break API all the time, so
we should be a bit careful in leau of versioning.

> >   3. Or should I create new packages like golang-github-russross-blackfriday
> >   for the cutting-edge version, and leave golang-blackfriday
> >   as the stable 1.2 version?
> 
> No, but you should rename the existing packages to the proper name.
> See other recently uploaded packages for examples on how to do that
> with regards to Breaks/Replaces if you’re unsure about that.
> 
> >
> > Thank you for your advice!
> 
> Thank you for your contributions :).

+1!

Cheers,
   Paul


signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
___
Pkg-go-maintainers mailing list
Pkg-go-maintainers@lists.alioth.debian.org
http://lists.alioth.debian.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pkg-go-maintainers

Re: [pkg-go] BTS best practice

[Paul Tagliamonte]

On Wed, Sep 09, 2015 at 12:00:48PM +1000, Dmitry Smirnov wrote:
> Dear Golang team,
> 
> I just want to remind everybody to tag uploaded ITP bugs as "pending" and to 
> maintain "block" relationships between ITP/RFP bugs. This is helpful for 
> those of us who work with hierarchies of dependencies.

I don't know that I'll go out of my way to do that -- but NEW is exposed
via RFC822[1] control format. It'd be trivial to ensure all the Closes:
for each entry in NEW are marked as pending. That might be a generally
fun thing to have running, or perhaps patch dak to do that for policy
queues.

Patches welcome for that for dak, I think. In the meantime, my ITPs will
likely not say 'pending', I don't really see the purpose.

Cheers,
  Paul


[1]: https://ftp-master.debian.org/new.822


signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
___
Pkg-go-maintainers mailing list
Pkg-go-maintainers@lists.alioth.debian.org
http://lists.alioth.debian.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pkg-go-maintainers

Re: [pkg-go] May I upgrade golang-blackfriday, golang-testify, etc. to latest versions?

[Paul Tagliamonte]

On Tue, Sep 08, 2015 at 06:05:45PM -0600, Anthony Fok wrote:
> > No, but you should rename the existing packages to the proper name.
> > See other recently uploaded packages for examples on how to do that
> > with regards to Breaks/Replaces if you’re unsure about that.
> 
> Thank you for this very important note.  I took some time to examine existing
> packages (basically git cloned 237 Go packages and grep'd for ^Replaces: etc.)
> and noticed slight discrepancies.  Now, regarding the renaming:
> 
>  1. Rename the binary -dev package
>  2. Rename the source package in debian/control (and hence orig.tar.xx too)
>  3. Rename the git repository too, i.e. "ssh git.debian.org",
>  "cd /git/pkg-go/packages", then "mv old-name.git new-name.git"
> 
> Should I just do #1?  (e.g. golang-gocolorize, a new package)
> Or just #1 and #2?  (e.g. golang-golang-x-net-dev)
> Or all three?  (e.g. golang-github-gorilla-mux)

I actually haven't thought about the right thing here -- but some
related thoughts from an archive standpoint:

1: Package enters binNEW, old binary package is marked by NBS, and
   it'll get tracked as archive cruft.

2: Package enters source NEW, marked as a binary hijack, and old source
   package is marked as obsolete source package, and gets tracked as
   archive cruft.

1 and 2: Package enters Source NEW *and* has new binaries, and dak won't
 see the old package as cruft


My thoughts are if we do #1 and #2 at the same time, we must also file
ftp-master removal bugs. If we do #1 and then #2 later, we wind up going
through NEW twice. Or #2 then #1. Doing both is more work on us, and
doing them independently will put more work on the ftpteam (and lag
updates).

That being said, I'm happy to process such things out of NEW.

> And, should I use Breaks/Replaces/Provides with transitional package
> (e.g. golang-golang-x-net-dev) instead of Conflicts/Replaces/Provides
> without transitional package (e.g. golang-github-gorilla-mux)?

I'd avoid using a new package for this, no reason we can't just provide
the package and make it virtual, I guess. Other thoughts on the team?

> Sorry for sounding pedantic, but as I am still pretty new to this
> and will be upgrading/migrating at least a handful of Go packages,
> I would like to know the best way before I dive all in.
> 
> Thanks again!
> 
> Cheers,
> Anthony

Cheers,
   Paul


signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
___
Pkg-go-maintainers mailing list
Pkg-go-maintainers@lists.alioth.debian.org
http://lists.alioth.debian.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pkg-go-maintainers

Re: [pkg-go] RFS: golang-github-juju-loggo

[Paul Tagliamonte]

On Wed, Sep 09, 2015 at 03:29:04AM +, Potter, Tim (Cloud Services) wrote:
> Hi everyone.  This package is required for bugsnag and I’ve just finished 
> renaming
> it and testing against the new naming policy.
> 
> Could someone please review and upload?

Same Vcs-* bug here

> 
> 
> Thanks,
> 
> Tim.
> ___
> Pkg-go-maintainers mailing list
> Pkg-go-maintainers@lists.alioth.debian.org
> http://lists.alioth.debian.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pkg-go-maintainers


signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
___
Pkg-go-maintainers mailing list
Pkg-go-maintainers@lists.alioth.debian.org
http://lists.alioth.debian.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pkg-go-maintainers

Re: [pkg-go] RFS: New upstream version of golang-gocheck (Closes #785772)

[Paul Tagliamonte]

On Wed, Sep 09, 2015 at 03:31:25AM +, Potter, Tim (Cloud Services) wrote:
> Hi everyone.  I filed bug #785772 in May but it hasn’t received any 
> attention.  A newer version of
> gocheck is required for bugsnag, and this update also closes another bug.
> 
> Could someone please review and upload?

This package isn't maintained by pkg-go. It currently FTBFS looking at
bugs, but that's about as far as I'll go with an NMU. I don't NMU new
upstream releases as a general rule.

The maintainer appears to be pseudo-MIA. Have you prod'd the maintainer
out of band? Asked if the team could take this over?


Cheers,
  Paul


signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
___
Pkg-go-maintainers mailing list
Pkg-go-maintainers@lists.alioth.debian.org
http://lists.alioth.debian.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pkg-go-maintainers

Re: [pkg-go] RFS: New upstream version of golang-gocheck (Closes #785772)

[Paul Tagliamonte]

On Tue, Sep 08, 2015 at 11:38:18PM -0400, Paul Tagliamonte wrote:
> On Wed, Sep 09, 2015 at 03:31:25AM +, Potter, Tim (Cloud Services) wrote:
> > Hi everyone.  I filed bug #785772 in May but it hasn’t received any 
> > attention.  A newer version of
> > gocheck is required for bugsnag, and this update also closes another bug.
> > 
> > Could someone please review and upload?
> 
> This package isn't maintained by pkg-go. It currently FTBFS looking at
> bugs, but that's about as far as I'll go with an NMU. I don't NMU new
> upstream releases as a general rule.
> 
> The maintainer appears to be pseudo-MIA. Have you prod'd the maintainer
> out of band? Asked if the team could take this over?

Ah! You asked on that FTBFS bug. I'll take a look at the changesets.
Let's also move this into the team git packages.


signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
___
Pkg-go-maintainers mailing list
Pkg-go-maintainers@lists.alioth.debian.org
http://lists.alioth.debian.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pkg-go-maintainers

Re: [pkg-go] Processing of golang-bugsnag-panicwrap_0.0~git20141111-1_amd64.changes

[Paul Tagliamonte]

On Wed, Sep 09, 2015 at 01:19:09PM +1000, Dmitry Smirnov wrote:
> On Wednesday 09 September 2015 02:58:43 Potter, Tim wrote:
> > Unfortunately this package needs to be re-uploaded, as there was a missing
> > rename of an install dependency.
> 
> Right, I've corrected package name in Build-Depends but missed it in 
> Depends... My bad...

You can check for this by installing the package after you build it.

> > Could someone please upload the new version?
> 
> Let's upload as soon as package is accepted by ftp-masters.

I'll reject it now. No sense in including it in a broken state.

Thanks!
  Paul


signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
___
Pkg-go-maintainers mailing list
Pkg-go-maintainers@lists.alioth.debian.org
http://lists.alioth.debian.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pkg-go-maintainers

Re: [pkg-go] RFS: golang-github-bitly-simplejson

[Paul Tagliamonte]

On Wed, Sep 09, 2015 at 03:28:59AM +, Potter, Tim (Cloud Services) wrote:
> Hi everyone.  This package is required for bugsnag and I’ve just finished 
> renaming
> it and testing against the new naming policy.
> 
> Could someone please review and upload?

Ah, your RFS was missing a -go :) -- package name is
golang-github-bitly-go-simplejson for those at home -- as a result, your
Vcs-* headers look a bit off :)

I'll take a closer look in a minute

Cheers,
  Paul


signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
___
Pkg-go-maintainers mailing list
Pkg-go-maintainers@lists.alioth.debian.org
http://lists.alioth.debian.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pkg-go-maintainers

Re: [pkg-go] RFS: golang-github-bitly-simplejson

[Paul Tagliamonte]

On Wed, Sep 09, 2015 at 03:46:41AM +, Potter, Tim (Cloud Services) wrote:
> On 9 Sep 2015, at 1:34 pm, Paul Tagliamonte <paul...@debian.org> wrote:
> > 
> > On Wed, Sep 09, 2015 at 03:28:59AM +, Potter, Tim (Cloud Services) 
> > wrote:
> >> Hi everyone.  This package is required for bugsnag and I’ve just finished 
> >> renaming
> >> it and testing against the new naming policy.
> >> 
> >> Could someone please review and upload?
> > 
> > Ah, your RFS was missing a -go :) -- package name is
> > golang-github-bitly-go-simplejson for those at home -- as a result, your
> > Vcs-* headers look a bit off :)
> 
> Yes - sorry about that.  The extra -go is necessary.
> 
> I've updated the Vcs-* fields now.

Looks great. I spotted an issue where d/control claimed 0.4.3, source
was from 0.5.0. Tim's on the job, just noting it for the channel. After
that's clear, it looked good to me.

Cheers,
  Paul


signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
___
Pkg-go-maintainers mailing list
Pkg-go-maintainers@lists.alioth.debian.org
http://lists.alioth.debian.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pkg-go-maintainers

Re: [pkg-go] Bug#798031: influxdb: incorrectly named -dev package

[Paul Tagliamonte]

On Sat, Sep 05, 2015 at 02:40:19AM +1000, Dmitry Smirnov wrote:
> I'd use "golang-influxdb-dev" (it is most intuitive and easy to guess).

That's wrong, don't do that. We have a policy, please follow it. Helpers
can create correct relations, unless we have special snowflakes. Please
don't introduce any.

Cheers,
   Paul


signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
___
Pkg-go-maintainers mailing list
Pkg-go-maintainers@lists.alioth.debian.org
http://lists.alioth.debian.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pkg-go-maintainers

Re: [pkg-go] Bug#798031: influxdb: incorrectly named -dev package

[Paul Tagliamonte]

On Fri, Sep 04, 2015 at 12:21:13PM -0400, Alexandre Viau wrote:
> Hello Dimitry,
> 
> On 04/09/15 12:04 PM, Dmitry Smirnov wrote:
> > There is an "influxdb-dev" but it ships golang sources so it probably 
> > should 
> > have been named "golang-influxdb-dev". Please consider adding 
> > 
> > Provides: golang-influxdb-dev
> > 
> > to "influxdb-dev" and/or eventually rename the latter.
> > 
> > Thanks.
> > 
> 
> I'll quote tianon from IRC on a discussion we had on runc:
> >  "runc-dev" should probably be named "golang-github-opencontainers
> >  -runc-dev" instead :)
> 
> So, what should be the name of the influxdb dev package?
> 
> - golang-influxdb-dev?
> - golang-github-influxdb-influxdb-dev?
> 
> I would vote for golang-github-influxdb-influxdb-dev. Its easier to
> search for packages if there is only one naming scheme.

This isn't a vote. We have a policy. Please follow it.

The correct name is golang-github-influxdb-influxdb-dev for the dev
package. Source should be golang-github-influxdb-influxdb.


signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
___
Pkg-go-maintainers mailing list
Pkg-go-maintainers@lists.alioth.debian.org
http://lists.alioth.debian.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pkg-go-maintainers

Re: [pkg-go] [PATCH] Read debian/control for DH_GOPKG

[Paul Tagliamonte]

On Thu, Aug 06, 2015 at 10:17:35PM +0200, Michael Stapelberg wrote:
 Committed! Can you please confirm that it works as expected? Once I
 hear back, I can do a new upload.

Confirmed! I tested master minus this patch, built a package. Success,
removed the d/rules line, moved it to control, confirmed FTBFS. Swaped
to master, installed, confirmed build. Reverted package to d/rules style
import path line, confirmed build.

Looks perfect to me!

Thanks, Michael!
  Paul

 On Mon, Jul 27, 2015 at 8:37 PM, Paul Tagliamonte paul...@debian.org wrote:
  Attached. I don't know Perl all that well, so this may need a bit
  of love before getting merged. In particular, I put it in sub new rather
  than every function that used DH_GOPKG in the body due to not knowing
  which is more idiomatic.
 
  Thanks!
Paul
 
  --
   .''`.  Paul Tagliamonte paul...@debian.org  |   Proud Debian Developer
  : :'  : 4096R / 8F04 9AD8 2C92 066C 7352  D28A 7B58 5B30 807C 2A87
  `. `'`  http://people.debian.org/~paultag
   `- http://people.debian.org/~paultag/conduct-statement.txt
 
 
 
 -- 
 Best regards,
 Michael

-- 
 .''`.   Paul Tagliamonte paul...@debian.org|   Proud Debian Developer
: :'  :  https://people.debian.org/~paultag   |   https://pault.ag/
`. `'`   Debian - the Universal Operating System
 `-4096R / 8F04 9AD8 2C92 066C 7352  D28A 7B58 5B30 807C 2A87


signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
___
Pkg-go-maintainers mailing list
Pkg-go-maintainers@lists.alioth.debian.org
http://lists.alioth.debian.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pkg-go-maintainers