Re: NEW processing

On Wed, Dec 03, 2008 at 08:48:20PM -0600, Raphael Geissert wrote: > -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- > Hash: SHA1 > > Michael Tautschnig wrote: > [...] > > > > Still, I don't think we need to bring in that unknown $user, I think this > > thread is more about some impatient DDs sitting and waiti

Re: NEW processing

Hi, On Wednesday 03 December 2008 23:46, Steve Langasek wrote: > > Some archs have already problems keeping up > [citation needed] :-) http://buildd.debian.org/stats/graph-quarter-big.png regards, Holger pgpLRSr6TXE24.pgp Description: PGP signature

Re: NEW processing

On 2008-12-03, Russ Allbery <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Sune Vuorela <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > >> And from my maintainer point of view, lintian becomes more and more >> irrelevant, as it warns about more and more stupidities, so the real >> issues is being hidden in the amount of crap outputte

Re: NEW processing

On Wed, Dec 03, 2008 at 10:15:50PM +0100, Joerg Jaspert wrote: > Packages that only add new binary components are already sorted above > packages that have completly new source, to decrease their time in the > queue, as their checks are much faster done than a complete source > review. But even th

Re: NEW processing

Amaya <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > Wrong! The overrriden ones should be a lot of fun to look at. Well, the override file is there for a purpose - it's entirely possible that lintian gives a false positive or the package in question has a valid exception for the error. In any case the lintian over

Re: NEW processing

On Thu, Dec 04, 2008 at 09:25:43AM +0100, Holger Levsen wrote: > On Wednesday 03 December 2008 23:46, Steve Langasek wrote: > > > Some archs have already problems keeping up > > [citation needed] > :-) > http://buildd.debian.org/stats/graph-quarter-big.png First, that graph isn't a measure of h

Re: NEW processing

On Thu, Dec 04, 2008 at 02:01:49AM +0100, Amaya wrote: > > > could be very much automatic, just as Zach pointed out. An automatic > > /me loves the Spanish pronunciation of my (nick)name :-) > Nah, blame me, for letting búbúlle pamper me with allowing me to > pronounce his nickname as I wish ;) >

Re: NEW processing

On Wed, Dec 03, 2008 at 05:03:49PM -0800, Russ Allbery wrote: > Steve Langasek <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > I submit that lintian warnings are entirely out of scope for the task the > > project has entrusted to the ftp team, and that mentioning this at all as a > > factor in making the NEW queu

Re: NEW processing

On Thu, Dec 04 2008, Steve Langasek wrote: > Which is why the ftp team should not be taking it upon themselves to > overrule other developers' assessments of which bugs are critical to > fix unless those overrulings are grounded in a clear consensus. > > If you have doubts about the quality of you

Re: NEW processing

On Wed, 3 Dec 2008 16:51:34 -0800 Steve Langasek <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > I completely disagree. It's a welcome benefit if packages of > > inferior quality are prevented from entering the archive in the > > first place imo. If you want to test packages not yet ready for > > debian > > The f

Re: NEW processing

On Wed, Dec 03, 2008 at 04:22:05PM -0800, Steve Langasek wrote: > I submit that lintian warnings are entirely out of scope for the > task the project has entrusted to the ftp team, and that mentioning And indeed, the proposal [1] (or at least my proposal) is to let dak automatically reject on lint

Re: NEW processing

On Thu, 4 Dec 2008 00:44:03 +0100 Amaya <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Maybe providing some sort of updated unstable to test our packages on, > in case we don't trust that our system has not become too tainted due > to intensive testing, would help. I know some of us do not have the > resources to e

Re: volunteers wanted for driving/finalizing a DEP on debian/copyright format

On Wed, Dec 03, 2008 at 01:04:14PM +, Noah Slater wrote: > On Wed, Dec 03, 2008 at 01:50:22PM +0100, Stefano Zacchiroli wrote: > > On Wed, Dec 03, 2008 at 12:26:03PM +, Noah Slater wrote: > > > How should we go about collecting to the contributers? Should I post > > > a note to the wiki (al

Re: volunteers wanted for driving/finalizing a DEP on debian/copyright format

On Wed, Dec 03 2008, Noah Slater wrote: > On Wed, Dec 03, 2008 at 10:52:39AM -0800, Steve Langasek wrote: >> Why do you need a separate mailing list for a single proposal? Please >> discuss this on debian-devel or debian-project, which are already perfectly >> adequate lists for this. > > We hav

Possibly excessive lintian warnings (was: NEW processing)

Sune Vuorela <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > Latest, the warning about quilt patches without any description. Sure it > is nice to have a description, but I don't need lintian to tell it. This is severity: minor, certainty: certain, which currently *barely* makes the W threshold. I think a very go

Re: NEW processing

On 04/12/08 at 09:25 +0100, Holger Levsen wrote: > Hi, > > On Wednesday 03 December 2008 23:46, Steve Langasek wrote: > > > Some archs have already problems keeping up > > [citation needed] > > :-) > > http://buildd.debian.org/stats/graph-quarter-big.png That proves that buildds have problems b

Re: NEW processing

Steve Langasek <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > By what process will the selection of lintian tags be submitted to the > project for review and approval prior to implementation as a hard > reject? I think that's a pretty good question. I don't think we need a very formal process, but as a Lintian m

Re: Bug#457318: qmail and related packages in NEW

On Tue, Dec 02, 2008 at 11:29:13AM +0100, Bjørn Mork wrote: > Gerrit Pape <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > Hi, I'm quite surprised how the inclusion of qmail and related packages > > into sid is handled, or rather not handled, by the ftpmasters. > > I downloaded the netqmail source from http://dbn.

Re: Possibly excessive lintian warnings (was: NEW processing)

On Thu, 04 Dec 2008 01:00:17 -0800, Russ Allbery wrote: Sune Vuorela <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: Latest, the warning about quilt patches without any description. Sure it is nice to have a description, but I don't need lintian to tell it. This is severity: minor, certainty: certain, which curr

Re: NEW processing

On Thu, Dec 04, 2008 at 01:03:19AM -0800, Russ Allbery wrote: > Thankfully, it's pretty easy to check in advance whether enabling hard > rejects would affect much of the archive. There are a bunch of E tags > Lintian produces which occur nowhere in the archive because they're so > serious that the

Re: NEW processing

On Wed, 03 Dec 2008 20:28:59 -0600, Raphael Geissert wrote: From the lintian hacker desk: $ lintian -I --exp-output format=letterqualifier [...] Other *experimental* output formats are 'xml' and 'colons' (currently b0rken). It's fixed in HEAD (well, it now works for me). Adam -- To UNSU

Re: Possibly excessive lintian warnings (was: NEW processing)

On 2008-12-04, Russ Allbery <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Sune Vuorela <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > >> Latest, the warning about quilt patches without any description. Sure it >> is nice to have a description, but I don't need lintian to tell it. > > I do think the warning is correct for a lint pro

Re: Bug#457318: qmail and related packages in NEW

Gerrit Pape <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > I've yet to be pointed to a grave or serious bug in the packages pending > in NEW, otherwise I see no reason why they shouldn't be processed and > pass NEW. I completely agree with this well written post Does the package in NEW fix the well known backscat

Invitation to connect on LinkedIn

LinkedIn chennai pc requested to add you as a connection on LinkedIn: -- Paul, Hi, I am manager of www.chennaipc.com - Computer Laptop Directory in Chennai.Also we own www.manyforyou.com - All information Linking portal.I Would like to add

Re: For those who care about pam-ssh: RFC

On Wed, Dec 03, 2008 at 11:19:52PM +0100, Jens Peter Secher wrote: > * The 'keyfiles' option is now obsolete. Instead the authentication > module will automatically locate all files matching the pattern 'id_*' > (the idea for this came from a patch from Javier Serrano Polo). That doesn

Re: Bug#457318: qmail and related packages in NEW

* Gerrit Pape: > Right now, upstream doesn't completely agree with Andree's list of > bugs. Out of curiosity, does netqmail fix at least the delayed bounce problem? -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: NEW processing

Le Wed, Dec 03, 2008 at 08:40:12PM -0600, Raphael Geissert a écrit : > > I of course do not want to say that reviewing packages in -mentors is always > useless, but here again we need to deal with yet another social problem which > is the lack of willingness by some people to work on their package

Packaging IKVM: inclusion of 3rd-party sources

Hello, as part of the Debian Mono Team, I'm trying to get ikvm [1] into an usable state. I've contacted the upstream author, since the build process is *nasty*, at least: it *requires* GNU Classpath's and OpenJDK's sources (upstream specified that a *full* *build* of OpenJDK is required, because of

Re: NEW processing

Le Wednesday 03 December 2008 22:15:50 Joerg Jaspert, vous avez écrit : > Packages that only add new binary components are already sorted above > packages that have completly new source, to decrease their time in the > queue, as their checks are much faster done than a complete source > review. But

Re: Packaging IKVM: inclusion of 3rd-party sources

David Paleino <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> (04/12/2008): > How should I behave here? > > 1) Should I include the sources in debian/ and do all the needed > steps to get a full compile? (notice that if we follow this, each > IKVM build will include an OpenJDK build...) > > 2) Or should I make two s

Re: Bits from the buildd.debian.org world

Hi, On Mon, Nov 24, 2008 at 07:26:06PM +0100, Adeodato Simó wrote: > Recent work from Steve McIntyre (current DPL) in coordination with Ryan > Murray (wanna-build maintainer and buildd admin for several architectures) > has led to the injection of new blood in the buildd.debian.org world. We Wil

Re: Packaging IKVM: inclusion of 3rd-party sources

On Thu, Dec 4, 2008 at 8:01 PM, Cyril Brulebois <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > David Paleino <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> (04/12/2008): >> Any suggestion is very welcome. > > 3) Run away. 4) Prepare asbestos suit. Then build-depend on openjdk-6-source and notify the release team about the need to binNMU ever

Re: For those who care about pam-ssh: RFC

On Thu, Dec 04, 2008 at 02:03:52AM -0800, Steve Langasek wrote: || On Wed, Dec 03, 2008 at 11:19:52PM +0100, Jens Peter Secher wrote: || || > * The 'keyfiles' option is now obsolete. Instead the authentication || > module will automatically locate all files matching the pattern 'id_*' ||

Re: NEW processing

* Lucas Nussbaum <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [081203 18:19]: > > I completely disagree. It's a welcome benefit if packages of inferior > > quality are prevented from entering the archive in the first place imo. > > We currently have a long reviewing process before packages get into the > archive. But once

Re: For those who care about pam-ssh: RFC

2008/12/4 Vincent Zweije <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > On Thu, Dec 04, 2008 at 02:03:52AM -0800, Steve Langasek wrote: > > || On Wed, Dec 03, 2008 at 11:19:52PM +0100, Jens Peter Secher wrote: > || > || > * The 'keyfiles' option is now obsolete. Instead the authentication > || > module will auto

Upcoming events in Japan

Hi, This is a short note to tell you all about what kind of events are happening in Japan. Upcoming events before the end of this year: 1. Kansai Debian Meeting 14 Dec 2008 in Osaka http://wiki.debian.org/KansaiDebianMeeting 2. Tokyo Area Debian Meeting 20 Dec 2008 in Ogikubo http://tokyodeb

Re: For those who care about pam-ssh: RFC

2008/12/4 Luca Niccoli <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > 2008/12/3 Jens Peter Secher <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > >> Because of the security implications of changing a PAM module, I would >> welcome some peer reviewing of the changes I have made. The new package >> has been uploaded to experimental, and the NEWS.D

Re: NEW processing

On Wed, Dec 03, 2008 at 10:09:37AM -0800, Don Armstrong wrote: > It shouldn't need to be more than this, because packages shouldn't be > uploaded with problems that can be trivially identified at NEW > processing time. Agreed. > However, considering some of the rejects which have > recently been

Dropping multisync-0.8x for lenny

Hi, recently a user made me aware that multisync_0.82-8.1 is still shipping in lenny currently. The 0.8x series of multisync has been abandoned upstream for several years now, and I think the opensync-0.22 packages together with kitchensync should give at least the same user experience for lenny

Re: For those who care about pam-ssh: RFC

2008/12/4 Jens Peter Secher <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > To do that you will need to change /etc/pam.d/ssh-auth to > > auth sufficient pam_ssh.so I know, that's why I'm not complaining =) May writing it in the README.Debian could be a good idea. > Hmm, if noone else has access to the computer (includ

Re: For those who care about pam-ssh: RFC

2008/12/4 Luca Niccoli <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > 2008/12/4 Jens Peter Secher <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > >> To do that you will need to change /etc/pam.d/ssh-auth to >> >> auth sufficient pam_ssh.so > > I know, that's why I'm not complaining =) > May writing it in the README.Debian could be a good idea. >

Re: Possibly excessive lintian warnings

>> The only thing that's been seriously discussed with an eye to >> implementation, so far as I know, is to automatically reject on the basis >> of a hand-selected and very limited subset of Lintian tags, which would >> probably not affect anything that you're doing and which would certainly >> no

Re: NEW processing

>> By what process will the selection of lintian tags be submitted to the >> project for review and approval prior to implementation as a hard >> reject? > I think that's a pretty good question. I don't think we need a very > formal process, but as a Lintian maintainer, I'd kind of like people to

Re: NEW processing

2008/12/4 Joerg Jaspert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > I have a list of tags. In Extremadura I had other ftpteam members and a > lintian maintainer look at it. Whenever this gets implemented this list will > be made public and then have a place on ftp-master.d.o webpage > somewhere. And everyone can comme

Re: NEW processing

On Thu, Dec 04, 2008 at 09:50:04AM +0100, Lucas Nussbaum wrote: > As you can see, there are short times where the buildds for one arch > have problem keeping up with the load, but that's often caused by : > - one of the buildds being temporarily unavailable > - one of the buildds building a very bi

Re: NEW processing

>> I have a list of tags. In Extremadura I had other ftpteam members and a >> lintian maintainer look at it. Whenever this gets implemented this list will >> be made public and then have a place on ftp-master.d.o webpage >> somewhere. And everyone can comment on it. > So it was already decided tha

Re: Possibly excessive lintian warnings (was: NEW processing)

Sune Vuorela wrote: [...] > > And other warnings that could be changed: > dbg-package-missing-depends - if there 1 dbg package and multiple > arch depending packages beside that. > Will try to work on a dh-like command (or maybe a patch against dh_strip, depends on what Joey prefers) that will ba

Re: Possibly excessive lintian warnings

"Adam D. Barratt" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > As I mentioned to Sune on IRC last night, the quilt tag's severity was > copied from the equivalent dpatch tag (which was originally implemented > as a warning and then moved to minor/certain during the transition). > > I've no problem with downgradi

Re: Possibly excessive lintian warnings (was: NEW processing)

On 2008-12-04, Raphael Geissert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Will try to work on a dh-like command (or maybe a patch against dh_strip, > depends on what Joey prefers) that will basically scan > debian/*/foo-dbg/usr/lib/debug/(*) and try to find a file under debian/*/ > matching the subgrouped expre

Re: Possibly excessive lintian warnings

On Thu, 2008-12-04 at 12:51 -0800, Russ Allbery wrote: > "Adam D. Barratt" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > > As I mentioned to Sune on IRC last night, the quilt tag's severity was > > copied from the equivalent dpatch tag (which was originally implemented > > as a warning and then moved to minor/c

Re: NEW processing

Neil Williams wrote: > d) fix as many other lintian errors as possible throughout the archive. > (Quite a lot of lintian errors - some that I would consider quite > serious - affect several hundred packages.) Actually, that's on my list of proposed QA RGs for squeeze, and am willing to work on it

Re: Possibly excessive lintian warnings

"Adam D. Barratt" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > ... and did that an hour ago. Apologies for not waiting a little longer > for objections / consensus. Oh, no, it's no problem. I was being too conservative. Thank you! -- Russ Allbery ([EMAIL PROTECTED])

Re: Possibly excessive lintian warnings

Sune Vuorela <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > No. it actually wouldn't work. > > In kde, for example kdepim, contains applications like > - korganizer > - kaddressbook > - kmail > - kpilot > > With a -dbg package depending on all apps, the user will have to install > all apps just for getting a b

Re: NEW processing

Hi Charles, Charles Plessy wrote: > Le Wed, Dec 03, 2008 at 08:40:12PM -0600, Raphael Geissert a écrit : >> >> I of course do not want to say that reviewing packages in -mentors is always >> useless, but here again we need to deal with yet another social problem which >> is the lack of willingne

Re: NEW processing

Steve Langasek <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > On Wed, Dec 03, 2008 at 05:03:49PM -0800, Russ Allbery wrote: >> There should be no minor-severity bugs that result in lintian errors. >> If there are, that's a bug in Lintian. Please report it. The lowest >> threshold that produces an E tag is severi

Re: Possibly excessive lintian warnings (was: NEW processing)

Sune Vuorela wrote: > On 2008-12-04, Raphael Geissert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> Will try to work on a dh-like command (or maybe a patch against dh_strip, >> depends on what Joey prefers) that will basically scan >> debian/*/foo-dbg/usr/lib/debug/(*) and try to find a file under debian/*/ >> ma

Promoting free PDF readers (was Re: Popular packages in Ubuntu that is missing in Debian/main)

Hi there! On Mon, 01 Dec 2008 11:12:55 +0100, Johannes Wiedersich wrote: > Gunnar Wolf wrote: >> But anyway, and knowing this is not an Ubuntu list... Does anybody >> know why on Earth is Acroread popular? Why isn't a PDF regularly >> handled in a saner way with Evince (or kde-based lookalike) in

Re: NEW processing

Thomas Viehmann wrote: > The particular pass through NEW that has been used to demonstrate the > deficiency of NEW processing was necessitated by the rename > iceweasel-l10n-hi to iceweasel-l10n-hi-in introduced in the previous > upload (and processed in 3-4 days or so). This rename took place afte

Re: Possibly excessive lintian warnings (was: NEW processing)

On 2008-12-04, Raphael Geissert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Using ORed depends, I forgot to say. How would OR'ed depends work? let us look at a example: package: kdepim-dbg depends: korganizer (= ${binary:Version})|kaddressbook (=${binary:version}) version: 4.1.3-1 now, I install korganizer 4.

Re: Possibly excessive lintian warnings

Sune Vuorela <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > How would OR'ed depends work? > > let us look at a example: > > package: kdepim-dbg > depends: korganizer (= ${binary:Version})|kaddressbook (=${binary:version}) > version: 4.1.3-1 > > now, I install korganizer 4.1.3-1 and kdepim-dbg. > later, 4.1.3-2 get

Re: NEW processing

Faidon Liambotis wrote: > Quality assurance of existing packages is a job for the QA team. And since everybody makes part of the QA team what you are really saying is: "Quality assurance of existing packages is a job for me". ftp-masters are doing a great, often thankless, job. Instead of just s

Re: NEW processing

Tzafrir Cohen wrote: > On Wed, Dec 03, 2008 at 08:48:20PM -0600, Raphael Geissert wrote: [...] >> >> What about encouraging those impatient folks (please don't be just exclusive >> to DDs) to track down (at times from mentors.d.n) the source package and >> review it themselves. Any finding should

Re: Possibly excessive lintian warnings (was: NEW processing)

The best solution would just be to drop most -dbg packages, drop maintainer-uploaded binary packages (using the buildd built packages instead), install the dh_strip from debug.d.n on all the buildds and get people to use -dbgsym packages from debug.d.n. -- bye, pabs http://wiki.debian.org/PaulWi

Re: Possibly excessive lintian warnings (was: NEW processing)

Paul Wise wrote: > The best solution would just be to drop most -dbg packages, drop > maintainer-uploaded binary packages (using the buildd built packages > instead), install the dh_strip from debug.d.n on all the buildds and > get people to use -dbgsym packages from debug.d.n. > a) That doesn't

Work-needing packages report for Dec 5, 2008

The following is a listing of packages for which help has been requested through the WNPP (Work-Needing and Prospective Packages) system in the last week. Total number of orphaned packages: 482 (new: 3) Total number of packages offered up for adoption: 114 (new: 0) Total number of packages request