Bug#886216: ITP: xymonq -- query-cli for Xymon

Package: wnpp Severity: wishlist Owner: Jonas Weber * Package name: xymonq Version : 0.7 Upstream Author : Thomas Eckert * URL : http://www.it-eckert.com/software/xymonq/ * License : Permissive Programming Lang: Bash Description : query-cli for Xymon

Bug#886217: ITP: datatables-extensions -- extensions for the jQuery plug-in for tables from different data sources

Package: wnpp Severity: wishlist Owner: Andreas Tille * Package name: datatables-extensions Version : 0.0+20150910 (no proper upstream versioning thus using date of last commit) Upstream Author : SpryMedia Limited * URL : http://www.datatables.net/ * License :

Bug#886219: lintian should be less pedantic about latest policy version

package: lintian severity: wishlist x-debbugs-cc: debian-devel@lists.debian.org On Mon, Jan 01, 2018 at 05:26:35PM +, Sean Whitton wrote: > I think that Lintian shouldn't warn about not using the latest > Standards-Version; perhaps it should warn when you're using a really old > one. Same her

Re: Why do we list individual copyright holders?

On Tue, Jan 02, 2018 at 10:51:56PM +0100, Markus Koschany wrote: > Am 02.01.2018 um 21:57 schrieb Tollef Fog Heen: > > ]] Markus Koschany > > [...] > > Also, the Standards-Version header is only recommended to be included, > > it's not mandatory. If its existence offends you so much and you have

Re: Bug#886219: lintian should be less pedantic about latest policy version

Control: found -1 2.5.67 On Wed, Jan 03, 2018 at 08:54:48AM +, Holger Levsen wrote: > On Mon, Jan 01, 2018 at 05:26:35PM +, Sean Whitton wrote: > > I think that Lintian shouldn't warn about not using the latest > > Standards-Version; perhaps it should warn when you're using a really old >

Re: Bug#886219: lintian should be less pedantic about latest policy version

Quoting Holger Levsen : Same here. IMO warnings about the last two policy versions should only be shown in pedantic mode. If a package is 3 versions behind, then this should be a normal lintian warning. Maybe warn about new minor number, but not micro number?

python2 warnings (Re: Why do we list individual copyright holders?

On Sun, Dec 31, 2017 at 09:50:10PM +0800, Paul Wise wrote: > > W: python-pysmi: new-package-should-not-package-python2-module > > This is the translation of a group of people's opinion. > With the Python 2 EOL coming in 2020, adding more Python 2 stuff isn't > going to help us migrate to Python 3,

Re: Bug#886219: lintian should be less pedantic about latest policy version

On Wed, Jan 03, 2018 at 12:16:57PM +0100, W. Martin Borgert wrote: > > Same here. IMO warnings about the last two policy versions should only be > > shown in pedantic mode. If a package is 3 versions behind, then this > > should be a normal lintian warning. > > Maybe warn about new minor number, b

Bug#886238: Please introduce official nosystemd build profile

Package: general Severity: wishlist Please introduce official nosystemd build profile so downstream distributions can send patches to package maintainers with systemd-less build instead of keep them in home.

Re: python2 warnings (Re: Why do we list individual copyright holders?

On Wed, Jan 3, 2018 at 6:46 AM, Holger Levsen wrote: > On Sun, Dec 31, 2017 at 09:50:10PM +0800, Paul Wise wrote: > in the vast majority of cases this is not actionable for us as package > maintainers, which is why I'm going to lintian override these warnings > for src:munin. Has the python2 depe

Re: python2 warnings (Re: Why do we list individual copyright holders?

On Wed, Jan 03, 2018 at 07:44:01AM -0500, Jeremy Bicha wrote: > Has the python2 dependency issue been reported upstream yet? yes -- cheers, Holger signature.asc Description: PGP signature

Re: python2 warnings (Re: Why do we list individual copyright holders?

On Wed, Jan 03, 2018 at 11:46:10AM +, Holger Levsen wrote: > W: munin-node: dependency-on-python-version-marked-for-end-of-life (Suggests: > python) > > in the vast majority of cases this is not actionable for us as package > maintainers, which is why I'm going to lintian override these warn

Re: python2 warnings (Re: Why do we list individual copyright holders?

On Wed, Jan 03, 2018 at 02:03:58PM +0100, Mattia Rizzolo wrote: > It is actionable, in a way. "in a way"… > IME, Debian holds quite some lobbying power, saying "we may end up > disabling this feature or not shipping the package at all" has some > importance to many projects. That may cause porti

Re: Bug#886219: lintian should be less pedantic about latest policy version

On Wed, Jan 03, 2018 at 05:11:33PM +0500, Andrey Rahmatullin wrote: > Or about versions older than N years. Already happens: https://lintian.debian.org/tags/ancient-standards-version.html It currently warns if the Policy version you refer has been released before 27 January 2016. -- regards,

Re: Why do we list individual copyright holders?

Hello, On Mon, Jan 01 2018, Russ Allbery wrote: > Vincent Bernat writes: >> ❦ 1 janvier 2018 11:31 -0800, Russ Allbery  : > >>> So that when someone does have a chance to update the package, they >>> know where to start from when reading the upgrading checklist. > >> I never do that and I don't

Bug#886238: Please introduce official nosystemd build profile

Hi, On 3 January 2018 at 13:12, Hleb Valoshka <375...@gmail.com> wrote: > Package: general > Severity: wishlist > > Please introduce official nosystemd build profile so downstream > distributions can send patches to package maintainers with > systemd-less build instead of keep them in home. Do we

Re: python2 warnings (Re: Why do we list individual copyright holders?

Hi Holger, > I think I would prefer to dependency-on-python-version-marked-for-end-of-life > to become a pedantic warning FYI I initially introduced this tag (and python-foo-but-no-python3-foo) as a pedantic level warning following roughly the same rationale as you outline. However, it was raise

Bug#886238: Please introduce official nosystemd build profile

On Wed, 03 Jan 2018 at 15:12:51 +0300, Hleb Valoshka wrote: > Please introduce official nosystemd build profile so downstream > distributions can send patches to package maintainers with > systemd-less build instead of keep them in home. In general, build profiles are not meant to result in functi

Bug#886254: ITP: cuba -- library for multidimensional numerical integration

Package: wnpp Severity: wishlist Owner: Francesco Montanari * Package name: cuba Version : 4.2 Upstream Author : Thomas Hahn * URL : http://www.feynarts.de/cuba/ * License : LGPL-3+ Programming Lang: C, C++, Fortran Description : library for multidimens

Bug#886238: Please introduce official nosystemd build profile

Andrew Shadura, on mer. 03 janv. 2018 13:59:05 +0100, wrote: > On 3 January 2018 at 13:12, Hleb Valoshka <375...@gmail.com> wrote: > > Package: general > > Severity: wishlist > > > > Please introduce official nosystemd build profile so downstream > > distributions can send patches to package mainta

Bug#886238: Please introduce official nosystemd build profile

Quoting Andrew Shadura (2018-01-03 13:59:05) > Hi, > > On 3 January 2018 at 13:12, Hleb Valoshka <375...@gmail.com> wrote: > > Package: general > > Severity: wishlist > > > > Please introduce official nosystemd build profile so downstream > > distributions can send patches to package maintainers w

Re: Bug#886238: Please introduce official nosystemd build profile

On 2018-01-03 13:59 +0100, Andrew Shadura wrote: > Hi, > > On 3 January 2018 at 13:12, Hleb Valoshka <375...@gmail.com> wrote: > > Package: general > > Severity: wishlist > > > > Please introduce official nosystemd build profile so downstream > > distributions can send patches to package maintaine

Bug#886238: Please introduce official nosystemd build profile

On Jan 03, Andrew Shadura wrote: > Do we really need systemd-less builds? I'm not convinced this is > something relevant to Debian. Not at all. This would be a lot of work for the benefit of a tiny audience: the disturbed people who hate systemd so much that they cannot accept even that libsyst

Bug#886238: Please introduce official nosystemd build profile

On Wed, Jan 03, 2018 at 01:59:05PM +0100, Andrew Shadura wrote: > Hi, > > On 3 January 2018 at 13:12, Hleb Valoshka <375...@gmail.com> wrote: > > Package: general > > Severity: wishlist > > > > Please introduce official nosystemd build profile so downstream > > distributions can send patches to pa

Bug#886256: ITP: r-cran-dt -- GNU R wrapper of the JavaScript library 'DataTables'

Package: wnpp Severity: wishlist Owner: Andreas Tille * Package name: r-cran-dt Version : 0.2 Upstream Author : Yihui Xie * URL : https://cran.r-project.org/package=DT * License : GPL Programming Lang: GNU R Description : GNU R wrapper of the JavaScrip

Re: Bug#886219: lintian should be less pedantic about latest policy version

control: severity -1 normal Hello, Thank you for filing this bug, Holger. Mattia and I are in significant disagreement over this and both feel quite strongly about the topic (hence the severity bump -- I think this moderately important for Debian). In this e-mail I want to lay out in full detai

Re: Why do we list individual copyright holders?

Hello, On Tue, Jan 02 2018, Markus Koschany wrote: > The changelog is something which can be naturally derived from the > changes made to a source package and excellent tools like > git-buildpackage ("gbp dch") make this kind of work rather simple. A > package description usually doesn't change.

Bug#886238: Please introduce official nosystemd build profile

Conversely, if the patches are invasive and unmaintainable, its not on Debian to merge them. On Jan 3, 2018 9:09 AM, "Wouter Verhelst" wrote: On Wed, Jan 03, 2018 at 01:59:05PM +0100, Andrew Shadura wrote: > Hi, > > On 3 January 2018 at 13:12, Hleb Valoshka <375...@gmail.com> wrote: > > Package:

Re: Why do we list individual copyright holders?

Hello, On Tue, Jan 02 2018, Niels Thykier wrote: > That said, it would be a good start to add S-V to many the lintian > tags, so people can see which S-V they apply to. > (You may be tempted to just apply a filter on the S-V; unfortunately > some tags will change iteratively between policy vers

Bug#886259: please downgrade dependency-on-python-version-marked-for-end-of-life to info or pedantic

package: lintian severity: wishlist x-debbugs-cc: debian-devel@lists.debian.org, d...@list.debian.org On Wed, Jan 03, 2018 at 02:24:46PM +, Sean Whitton wrote: [...lots of stuff I agree with deleted...] > Lintian errors and warnings tell you, roughly, "watch out, your upload > might/will make

Bug#886258: Clarify whether or not the Standards-Version field must be present, or lower Lintian tag severity

Package: debian-policy, lintian Severity: normal Hello, On Tue, Jan 02 2018, Markus Koschany wrote: > If the Standards-Version field is optional, great! Then let's get rid of > it right now. The Lintian error is presumably as mistake, isn't it? Either Policy should mandate this field, or it sho

Re: Bug#886238: Please introduce official nosystemd build profile

On Wed, Jan 03, 2018 at 02:25:03PM +0100, Marco d'Itri wrote: > On Jan 03, Andrew Shadura wrote: > > Do we really need systemd-less builds? I'm not convinced this is > > something relevant to Debian. > > Not at all. > This would be a lot of work for the benefit of a tiny audience: the > disturbe

Re: Bug#886219: lintian should be less pedantic about latest policy version

Control: forecemerge -1 886210 Control: tag -1 pending the previous merge from Holger failed due to mismatching severities. On Wed, Jan 03, 2018 at 02:24:46PM +, Sean Whitton wrote: > Mattia and I are in significant disagreement over this and both feel > quite strongly about the topic (hence

Bug#886238: Please introduce official nosystemd build profile

On Wed, Jan 03, 2018 at 02:25:03PM +0100, Marco d'Itri wrote: > On Jan 03, Andrew Shadura wrote: > > > Do we really need systemd-less builds? I'm not convinced this is > > something relevant to Debian. > Not at all. > This would be a lot of work for the benefit of a tiny audience: the > disturbe

Bug#886238: Please introduce official nosystemd build profile

On Wed, 3 Jan 2018 14:25:03 +0100 m...@linux.it (Marco d'Itri) wrote: > This would be a lot of work for the benefit of a tiny audience: the > disturbed people who hate systemd so much that they cannot accept even > that libsystemd is installed on their computers. And insults like this is why a

Re: Bug#886219: lintian should be less pedantic about latest policy version

Hello Mattia, Thanks for your reply. On Wed, Jan 03 2018, Mattia Rizzolo wrote: >> ISTM that requiring maintainers to check packages against the >> upgrading checklist before they can upload other improvements is an >> example of requiring prerequisite work of volunteers that is not >> needed fo

Re: Bug#886219: lintian should be less pedantic about latest policy version

On Wed, Jan 03, 2018 at 02:24:46PM +, Sean Whitton wrote: > control: severity -1 normal > > Thanks for summarising exactly when these tags are triggered, Mattia. > > Let me first say exactly what change I'd recommend: > > - out-of-date-standards-version should be I: or P: instead of W: > - a

Bug#886238: Please introduce official nosystemd build profile

On Wed, Jan 03, 2018 at 09:13:24AM -0500, Paul R. Tagliamonte wrote: > Conversely, if the patches are invasive and unmaintainable, its not on Debian > to merge them. Yes. But adding a "nosystemd" build profile is in no way "invasive and unmaintainable". (why the top-post?) > On Jan 3, 2018 9:09

Bug#886238: Please introduce official nosystemd build profile

On Wed, 2018-01-03 at 14:26 +0100, Samuel Thibault wrote: > > Do we really need systemd-less builds? I'm not convinced this is > > something relevant to Debian. > > Well, if Debian wants to remain relevant to downstreams, it'd be > better to accomodate their needs. I think there is only one distr

Bug#886268: ITP: butt -- streaming tool for live audio very easy to use

Package: wnpp Severity: wishlist Owner: "Paulo Henrique de Lima Santana (phls)" * Package name: butt Version : 0.1.16 Upstream Author : Daniel Nothen * URL : http://danielnoethen.de * License : GPL-2+ Programming Lang: C Description : streaming tool fo

Re: Bug#886238: Please introduce official nosystemd build profile

On Wed, Jan 03, 2018 at 02:24:27PM +, Colin Watson wrote: It would be of some benefit to the rest of us because we could probably stop having conversations about it more quickly by pointing to the build profile ... That seems overly optimistic at best. Mike Stone

Re: Bug#886238: Please introduce official nosystemd build profile

On Wed, Jan 03, 2018 at 09:46:59AM -0500, Roberto C. Sánchez wrote: > > > Do we really need systemd-less builds? I'm not convinced this is > > > something relevant to Debian. > > Not at all. > > This would be a lot of work for the benefit of a tiny audience: the > > disturbed people who hate syste

Re: Bug#886238: Please introduce official nosystemd build profile

On Wed, Jan 03, 2018 at 03:40:06PM +0100, Attila Kinali wrote: > And insults like this is why a lot of people stopped discussing > anything with systemd zealots. So win-win? -- WBR, wRAR signature.asc Description: PGP signature

Re: e2fsprogs as Essential: yes?: Maybe we should be separating l10n files first?

On Mon, Jan 01, 2018 at 11:43:23PM +, Simon McVittie wrote: > > Perhaps you could convert this into a pkg.e2fsprogs.nofuse build profile? > > This would look something like the attached (untested!) patches. Thanks, I'll give this a try. From the Bui

Re: Bug#886238: Please introduce official nosystemd build profile

Hleb Valoshka <375...@gmail.com> writes: > Please introduce official nosystemd build profile so downstream > distributions can send patches to package maintainers with systemd-less > build instead of keep them in home. If this is about avoiding linking with libsystemd, I think this is unbelievabl

Bug#886238: Please introduce official nosystemd build profile

On Wed, Jan 03, 2018 at 09:13:24AM -0500, Paul R. Tagliamonte wrote: > Conversely, if the patches are invasive and unmaintainable, its not on > Debian to merge them. Moreover, defining an official nosystemd profile in Debian signals that we are willing to support it, which means any maintainers wh

Re: salsa.debian.org (git.debian.org replacement) going into beta

On Tue, 2 Jan 2018 18:54:22 +0100, Raphael Hertzog wrote: >That said while it is possible to use @packages.debian.org email >addresses in Maintainer fields it hat not been "validated" yet and you >will likely see multiple problems. Some of them have been identified >already (see Mehdi's mail in th

Re: Bug#886238: Please introduce official nosystemd build profile

On Wed, Jan 03, 2018 at 09:46:59AM -0500, Roberto C. Sánchez wrote: > That said, I find that your characterization of someone not wanting > systemd installed on their system as "disturbed" to itself be somewhat > disturbing. You cannot possibly know what grounds someone might have > for not wanti

Bug#886238: Please introduce official nosystemd build profile

Quoting Simon McVittie (2018-01-03 14:30:55) > On Wed, 03 Jan 2018 at 15:12:51 +0300, Hleb Valoshka wrote: > > Please introduce official nosystemd build profile so downstream > > distributions can send patches to package maintainers with > > systemd-less build instead of keep them in home. > > In

Re: e2fsprogs as Essential: yes?: Maybe we should be separating l10n files first?

On Wed, 03 Jan 2018 at 12:40:45 -0500, Theodore Ts'o wrote: > From the BuildProfile web page and > looking at the package versions, support for it appears to be in > Jessie, or at least "preliminary support" is present. jessie's apt/dpkg at least don't choke on the new syntax (I tried backporting

Re: Why do we list individual copyright holders?

Am 03.01.2018 um 10:11 schrieb Tobias Frost: > On Tue, Jan 02, 2018 at 10:51:56PM +0100, Markus Koschany wrote: [...] >> In fact my primary effort is to improve all packages which I maintain >> and touch and by raising my voice on this list I hope that future >> maintainers will suffer less from ob

Re: Bug#886238: Please introduce official nosystemd build profile

Hi, On 03.01.2018 20:01, Steve Langasek wrote: > What a nosystemd build profile proposes to do is to avoid linking against > *lib*systemd, which is an inert library dependency whose runtime impact > rounds to zero when systemd is not in use. I don't really care about a bit of dead weight except

Re: Why do we list individual copyright holders?

Quoting Markus Koschany (2018-01-03 22:21:59) > I'm really surprised that those who upload a package once in a blue > moon have the strongest opinions in this thread when we discuss how we > can reduce the maintenance burden and do something more useful with > our free time. You uploaded 19 pack

Re: Bug#886219: lintian should be less pedantic about latest policy version

Hello Bill, On Wed, Jan 03 2018, Bill Allombert wrote: > Standards-Version is purely informational. All packages are expected > to comply with the latest policy, and respectively, when policy > changes are proposed, we are careful to check what packages are > impacted and what should be done abou

Re: e2fsprogs as Essential: yes?: Maybe we should be separating l10n files first?

On Wed, Jan 03, 2018 at 08:16:35PM +, Simon McVittie wrote: > > Has there been any thought about having the build > > profiles framework support for having the rules file autoselect a > > build profile based on the build environment? > > I suspect that might be a "considered and rejected" sort

Re: e2fsprogs as Essential: yes?: Maybe we should be separating l10n files first?

On Tue, Jan 02, 2018 at 12:38:55AM +0100, Manuel A. Fernandez Montecelo wrote: > > Lately architectures tend to use automatic bootstrapping at least for > some of the initial dependencies. Adding support for build profiles > (would be something like pkg.e2fsprogs.nofuse in this case) can help to

Bug#886238: Please introduce official nosystemd build profile

On 1/3/18, Steve Langasek wrote: > On Wed, Jan 03, 2018 at 09:13:24AM -0500, Paul R. Tagliamonte wrote: >> Conversely, if the patches are invasive and unmaintainable, its not on >> Debian to merge them. > > Moreover, defining an official nosystemd profile in Debian signals that we > are willing to

Marking bugs as pending for salsa.d.o

In the Git repositories of packages that I maintain at alioth.d.o, a script [*] is called in the post-receive hook for tagging the bugs listed in the meta tag "Closes:" of gbp-dch as "pending". Is there a way to have a similar integration service for the Git repositories at salsa.d.o? Best,

Bug#886238: Please introduce official nosystemd build profile

On Wed, Jan 03, 2018 at 02:48:11PM -0900, Britton Kerin wrote: > On 1/3/18, Steve Langasek wrote: > > On Wed, Jan 03, 2018 at 09:13:24AM -0500, Paul R. Tagliamonte wrote: > >> Conversely, if the patches are invasive and unmaintainable, its not on > >> Debian to merge them. > > Moreover, defining

Re: Bug#886238: Please introduce official nosystemd build profile

Wouter Verhelst wrote: > On Wed, Jan 03, 2018 at 09:13:24AM -0500, Paul R. Tagliamonte wrote: >> Conversely, if the patches are invasive and unmaintainable, its not on Debian >> to merge them. > > Yes. But adding a "nosystemd" build profile is in no way "invasive and > unmaintainable". "nosystemd"

Re: Bug#886238: Please introduce official nosystemd build profile

On Wed, 03 Jan 2018 at 22:34:01 +0100, Simon Richter wrote: > On 03.01.2018 20:01, Steve Langasek wrote: > > What a nosystemd build profile proposes to do is to avoid linking against > > *lib*systemd, which is an inert library dependency whose runtime impact > > rounds to zero when systemd is not i

Re: Bug#886238: Please introduce official nosystemd build profile

On Wed, Jan 03, 2018 at 09:55:44AM -0800, Russ Allbery wrote: > Hleb Valoshka <375...@gmail.com> writes: > > > Please introduce official nosystemd build profile so downstream > > distributions can send patches to package maintainers with systemd-less > > build instead of keep them in home. > > If

Re: Bug#886238: Please introduce official nosystemd build profile

Adam Borowski writes: > -shim is moribund (and never worked right even when it was maintained), > thus installing it on systems with modular inits is damage. I believe > this is the problem that should be solved first -- because all > non-trivial cases mentioned above use logind or an equivalent

Re: Marking bugs as pending for salsa.d.o

On Thu, 04 Jan 2018, Rafael Laboissière wrote: > In the Git repositories of packages that I maintain at alioth.d.o, a > script [*] is called in the post-receive hook for tagging the bugs listed in > the meta tag "Closes:" of gbp-dch as "pending". > > Is there a way to have a similar integration s