Re: xorgproto_2018.4-1_amd64.changes REJECTED
On 09.03.2018 08:00, Chris Lamb wrote: > > Version: 2018.4-1 > Timestamp: 2018-03-06 19:36:05.059079+00:00 > > Takes over more then ten packages but gives not the slightest hint that this > is correct Hint like what, and for whom, exactly? Upstream merged all the separate protocol packages in one: https://lists.freedesktop.org/archives/xorg/2018-February/059133.html > Uses a weird mix of package styles: > W: xorgproto source: patch-system-but-direct-changes-in-diff > attic/bigreqsproto/docbook.am > W: xorgproto source: patch-system-but-direct-changes-in-diff > attic/bigreqsproto/specs/Makefile.am > W: xorgproto source: patch-system-but-direct-changes-in-diff > attic/fontsproto/docbook.am > W: xorgproto source: patch-system-but-direct-changes-in-diff > attic/fontsproto/specs/Makefile.am That's because packaging is based on upstream git plus source format 1.0 (like ~all xorg-team packages are), and the tarball doesn't ship these. But whatever, I've removed them from the packaging branch. -- t
[Git][xorg-team/proto/xorgproto][debian-unstable] 3 commits: update signing-key.asc
Timo Aaltonen pushed to branch debian-unstable at X Strike Force / proto / xorgproto Commits: 068eef0a by Timo Aaltonen at 2018-03-09T09:38:09+02:00 update signing-key.asc - - - - - a3bbb583 by Timo Aaltonen at 2018-03-09T09:44:54+02:00 remove useless attic/ from packaging branch - - - - - ffb0fb69 by Timo Aaltonen at 2018-03-09T09:46:07+02:00 remove useless man/ and specs/ from packaging branch - - - - - 30 changed files: - − attic/bigreqsproto/docbook.am - − attic/bigreqsproto/specs/.gitignore - − attic/bigreqsproto/specs/Makefile.am - − attic/fontsproto/docbook.am - − attic/fontsproto/specs/.gitignore - − attic/fontsproto/specs/Makefile.am - − attic/inputproto/specs/.gitignore - − attic/inputproto/specs/Makefile.am - − attic/kbproto/docbook.am - − attic/kbproto/specs/.gitignore - − attic/kbproto/specs/Makefile.am - − attic/merge-makefile - − attic/merge-protos - − attic/move-protos - − attic/protos - − attic/recordproto/docbook.am - − attic/recordproto/specs/.gitignore - − attic/recordproto/specs/Makefile.am - − attic/scrnsaverproto/docbook.am - − attic/scrnsaverproto/specs/.gitignore - − attic/scrnsaverproto/specs/Makefile.am - − attic/x11proto/docbook.am - − attic/x11proto/specs/.gitignore - − attic/x11proto/specs/Makefile.am - − attic/xcmiscproto/docbook.am - − attic/xcmiscproto/specs/.gitignore - − attic/xcmiscproto/specs/Makefile.am - − attic/xextproto/docbook.am - − attic/xextproto/specs/.gitignore - − attic/xextproto/specs/Makefile.am The diff was not included because it is too large. View it on GitLab: https://salsa.debian.org/xorg-team/proto/xorgproto/compare/8165f1e0a9ca537f7abc0db333c79f76d46fb96a...ffb0fb694ce39487d5546740451206afd0ad89df --- View it on GitLab: https://salsa.debian.org/xorg-team/proto/xorgproto/compare/8165f1e0a9ca537f7abc0db333c79f76d46fb96a...ffb0fb694ce39487d5546740451206afd0ad89df You're receiving this email because of your account on salsa.debian.org.
Re: xorgproto_2018.4-1_amd64.changes REJECTED
On Fri, Mar 09, 2018 at 09:55:06AM +0200, Timo Aaltonen wrote: > On 09.03.2018 08:00, Chris Lamb wrote: > > Version: 2018.4-1 > > Timestamp: 2018-03-06 19:36:05.059079+00:00 > > Takes over more then ten packages but gives not the slightest hint that > > this is correct > Hint like what, and for whom, exactly? Upstream merged all the separate > protocol packages in one: The changelog is a place to document what and sometimes why something changed. In this case it just tells us this package is pristine. As it takes over existing stuff this is obviously not correct, it got some kind of a history. > > Uses a weird mix of package styles: > > W: xorgproto source: patch-system-but-direct-changes-in-diff > > attic/bigreqsproto/docbook.am > > W: xorgproto source: patch-system-but-direct-changes-in-diff > > attic/bigreqsproto/specs/Makefile.am > > W: xorgproto source: patch-system-but-direct-changes-in-diff > > attic/fontsproto/docbook.am > > W: xorgproto source: patch-system-but-direct-changes-in-diff > > attic/fontsproto/specs/Makefile.am > That's because packaging is based on upstream git plus source format 1.0 > (like ~all xorg-team packages are), and the tarball doesn't ship these. > But whatever, I've removed them from the packaging branch. Well, lintian thinks this is fishy. So please do something against such warnings (and also the one error!). In this case I don't see why this can't be a 3.0 package, as it even is setup to use a quilt patch series. Bastian -- I have never understood the female capacity to avoid a direct answer to any question. -- Spock, "This Side of Paradise", stardate 3417.3
Re: xorgproto_2018.4-1_amd64.changes REJECTED
On 09.03.2018 10:38, Bastian Blank wrote: > On Fri, Mar 09, 2018 at 09:55:06AM +0200, Timo Aaltonen wrote: >> On 09.03.2018 08:00, Chris Lamb wrote: >>> Version: 2018.4-1 >>> Timestamp: 2018-03-06 19:36:05.059079+00:00 >>> Takes over more then ten packages but gives not the slightest hint that >>> this is correct >> Hint like what, and for whom, exactly? Upstream merged all the separate >> protocol packages in one: > > The changelog is a place to document what and sometimes why something > changed. In this case it just tells us this package is pristine. As it > takes over existing stuff this is obviously not correct, it got some > kind of a history. Alright, -2 will have something. >>> Uses a weird mix of package styles: >>> W: xorgproto source: patch-system-but-direct-changes-in-diff >>> attic/bigreqsproto/docbook.am >>> W: xorgproto source: patch-system-but-direct-changes-in-diff >>> attic/bigreqsproto/specs/Makefile.am >>> W: xorgproto source: patch-system-but-direct-changes-in-diff >>> attic/fontsproto/docbook.am >>> W: xorgproto source: patch-system-but-direct-changes-in-diff >>> attic/fontsproto/specs/Makefile.am >> That's because packaging is based on upstream git plus source format 1.0 >> (like ~all xorg-team packages are), and the tarball doesn't ship these. >> But whatever, I've removed them from the packaging branch. > > Well, lintian thinks this is fishy. So please do something against such > warnings (and also the one error!). In this case I don't see why this > can't be a 3.0 package, as it even is setup to use a quilt patch series. I only see this which was due to my sbuild config: E: xorgproto changes: bad-distribution-in-changes-file sid -- t
Processing of xorgproto_2018.4-2_amd64.changes
xorgproto_2018.4-2_amd64.changes uploaded successfully to localhost along with the files: xorgproto_2018.4-2.dsc xorgproto_2018.4.orig.tar.gz xorgproto_2018.4.orig.tar.gz.asc xorgproto_2018.4-2.diff.gz x11proto-bigreqs-dev_2018.4-2_all.deb x11proto-composite-dev_2018.4-2_all.deb x11proto-core-dev_2018.4-2_all.deb x11proto-damage-dev_2018.4-2_all.deb x11proto-dev_2018.4-2_all.deb x11proto-dmx-dev_2018.4-2_all.deb x11proto-dri2-dev_2018.4-2_all.deb x11proto-dri3-dev_2018.4-2_all.deb x11proto-fixes-dev_2018.4-2_all.deb x11proto-fonts-dev_2018.4-2_all.deb x11proto-gl-dev_2018.4-2_all.deb x11proto-input-dev_2018.4-2_all.deb x11proto-kb-dev_2018.4-2_all.deb x11proto-present-dev_2018.4-2_all.deb x11proto-print-dev_2018.4-2_all.deb x11proto-randr-dev_2018.4-2_all.deb x11proto-record-dev_2018.4-2_all.deb x11proto-render-dev_2018.4-2_all.deb x11proto-resource-dev_2018.4-2_all.deb x11proto-scrnsaver-dev_2018.4-2_all.deb x11proto-video-dev_2018.4-2_all.deb x11proto-xcmisc-dev_2018.4-2_all.deb x11proto-xext-dev_2018.4-2_all.deb x11proto-xf86bigfont-dev_2018.4-2_all.deb x11proto-xf86dga-dev_2018.4-2_all.deb x11proto-xf86dri-dev_2018.4-2_all.deb x11proto-xf86vidmode-dev_2018.4-2_all.deb x11proto-xinerama-dev_2018.4-2_all.deb xorgproto_2018.4-2_amd64.buildinfo Greetings, Your Debian queue daemon (running on host usper.debian.org)
xorgproto_2018.4-2_amd64.changes is NEW
binary:x11proto-dev is NEW. binary:x11proto-dev is NEW. source:xorgproto is NEW. Your package has been put into the NEW queue, which requires manual action from the ftpteam to process. The upload was otherwise valid (it had a good OpenPGP signature and file hashes are valid), so please be patient. Packages are routinely processed through to the archive, and do feel free to browse the NEW queue[1]. If there is an issue with the upload, you will receive an email from a member of the ftpteam. If you have any questions, you may reply to this email. [1]: https://ftp-master.debian.org/new.html or https://ftp-master.debian.org/backports-new.html for *-backports
Re: xorgproto_2018.4-1_amd64.changes REJECTED
On 03/09/2018 09:38 AM, Bastian Blank wrote: > On Fri, Mar 09, 2018 at 09:55:06AM +0200, Timo Aaltonen wrote: >> On 09.03.2018 08:00, Chris Lamb wrote: >>> Version: 2018.4-1 >>> Timestamp: 2018-03-06 19:36:05.059079+00:00 >>> Takes over more then ten packages but gives not the slightest hint that >>> this is correct >> Hint like what, and for whom, exactly? Upstream merged all the separate >> protocol packages in one: > > The changelog is a place to document what and sometimes why something > changed. In this case it just tells us this package is pristine. As it > takes over existing stuff this is obviously not correct, it got some > kind of a history. > >>> Uses a weird mix of package styles: >>> W: xorgproto source: patch-system-but-direct-changes-in-diff >>> attic/bigreqsproto/docbook.am >>> W: xorgproto source: patch-system-but-direct-changes-in-diff >>> attic/bigreqsproto/specs/Makefile.am >>> W: xorgproto source: patch-system-but-direct-changes-in-diff >>> attic/fontsproto/docbook.am >>> W: xorgproto source: patch-system-but-direct-changes-in-diff >>> attic/fontsproto/specs/Makefile.am >> That's because packaging is based on upstream git plus source format 1.0 >> (like ~all xorg-team packages are), and the tarball doesn't ship these. >> But whatever, I've removed them from the packaging branch. > > Well, lintian thinks this is fishy. So please do something against such > warnings (and also the one error!). In this case I don't see why this > can't be a 3.0 package, as it even is setup to use a quilt patch series. > Just because lintian thinks this is fishy doesn't mean humans can't disagree. This warning applies to hundreds of packages in the archive. Why this is used as justification for a reject is beyond me. Cheers, Julien
Re: xorgproto_2018.4-1_amd64.changes REJECTED
On 03/09/2018 10:16 AM, Timo Aaltonen wrote: > On 09.03.2018 10:38, Bastian Blank wrote: >> On Fri, Mar 09, 2018 at 09:55:06AM +0200, Timo Aaltonen wrote: >>> On 09.03.2018 08:00, Chris Lamb wrote: Version: 2018.4-1 Timestamp: 2018-03-06 19:36:05.059079+00:00 Takes over more then ten packages but gives not the slightest hint that this is correct >>> Hint like what, and for whom, exactly? Upstream merged all the separate >>> protocol packages in one: >> >> The changelog is a place to document what and sometimes why something >> changed. In this case it just tells us this package is pristine. As it >> takes over existing stuff this is obviously not correct, it got some >> kind of a history. > > Alright, -2 will have something. > That info is also in the ITP bug. Cheers, Julien
Re: xorgproto_2018.4-1_amd64.changes REJECTED
On Fri, Mar 09, 2018 at 02:23:29PM +0100, Julien Cristau wrote: > > Well, lintian thinks this is fishy. So please do something against such > > warnings (and also the one error!). In this case I don't see why this > > can't be a 3.0 package, as it even is setup to use a quilt patch series. > Just because lintian thinks this is fishy doesn't mean humans can't > disagree. This warning applies to hundreds of packages in the archive. > Why this is used as justification for a reject is beyond me. Because it is documented in https://ftp-master.debian.org/REJECT-FAQ.html? Bastian -- War is never imperative. -- McCoy, "Balance of Terror", stardate 1709.2
Re: xorgproto_2018.4-1_amd64.changes REJECTED
On 03/09/2018 02:36 PM, Bastian Blank wrote: > On Fri, Mar 09, 2018 at 02:23:29PM +0100, Julien Cristau wrote: >>> Well, lintian thinks this is fishy. So please do something against such >>> warnings (and also the one error!). In this case I don't see why this >>> can't be a 3.0 package, as it even is setup to use a quilt patch series. >> Just because lintian thinks this is fishy doesn't mean humans can't >> disagree. This warning applies to hundreds of packages in the archive. >> Why this is used as justification for a reject is beyond me. > > Because it is documented in > https://ftp-master.debian.org/REJECT-FAQ.html? > There's a difference between errors/warnings that actually affect the package, and stylistic/cosmetic issues that make no practical difference, IMO. Cheers, Julien
