Bug#1062001: RFS: trader/7.20-1 -- simple game of interstellar trading
On Sun, Mar 10, 2024 at 04:25:16PM +0100, Tobias Frost wrote: Maybe this needs a bit more expansion: > Having two sources of packages is bad too, I'd suggest to stop > distribution your own packages, at least make sure not to use the same > exact same version/revision, so that there will be clear from looking on > the version only that this was from your archives. Otherwise, I'll > envise chaos. Make sure that the version in your archives sort earlier > than the one in Debian's as this sould be the canonical source of the > Debian packages. Such a versioning scheme is also used for backports, > you can look there how it is done. If you ship packages yourself, you should ensure that if people installing from Debian archives they will get the Debian package not yours, at least if the version in the Debian archive is not of an older version. This is similar to the procedure when doing a backport, the backport version is always "older" than then the version in testing, so that when testing becomes stable the proper package from now-stable is installed, updating the backports package. An easy way is to append "~" to your upstream package's revision, as this will always sort earlier, eg. "7.20-3~" -- tobi
Bug#1062001: RFS: trader/7.20-1 -- simple game of interstellar trading
Control: tags -1 moreinfo Hi John, thanks for the fixes you've already applied, but the package needs more work to be Debian compliant. On Wed, Feb 28, 2024 at 11:10:58AM +1100, John Zaitseff wrote: > Control: retitle -1 trader/7.20-2 -- simple game of interstellar trading > Control: tags -1 - moreinfo > > Dear Tobias, > > Thank you very much for your feedback on my RFS for Star Traders, > and apologies for not replying sooner -- it's been a bit of a crazy > week around here... > > You (or anyone else) can see my latest Git tree at the following > URL; this tree reflects the changes I've made as a result of your > email: > > https://www.zap.org.au/git-browser/trader.git/tree/?h=with-debian > git clone https://git.zap.org.au/git/trader.git -b with-debian > > I do have a few questions and observations about your comments: > > > d/control: > > - Please remove all versions from the versioned build depends that > > are fulfiled already since oldstable, e.g gettext and automake. > > Good catch! This is what happens when one maintains a Debian > package outside the distro since 2011... > > Given that the Git tag for package version 7.20-1 already exists > (and has been distributed!), I've released the new package as > 7.20-2, with the entry for 7.20-1 removed as it has not been > uploaded to Debian. Well, the first Debian revision should be -1, and I wonder why you are repeating that mistake with -3? At least that one should have been kept at -2. To avoid confusion, a "-1" with the suite "UNRELEASED" could been added to the changelog, so that people know what's happening. In future, don't bump the Debian revision unless it has been sponsored. Having two sources of packages is bad too, I'd suggest to stop distribution your own packages, at least make sure not to use the same exact same version/revision, so that there will be clear from looking on the version only that this was from your archives. Otherwise, I'll envise chaos. Make sure that the version in your archives sort earlier than the one in Debian's as this sould be the canonical source of the Debian packages. Such a versioning scheme is also used for backports, you can look there how it is done. Regarding the revision -3: You write "New upstream relases", that is wrong, or at least you are using the terminology wrong. A new upstream release must have a new upstream version , and a new orig.tar corresponding to the new upstream version. Yours are the same. To have a way out, and as you are upstream, how's about cutting a new upstream release, e.g 7.21 and package it as 7.21-1 ? > I'm retitling this bug report to suit. If you > prefer, I can close this RFS and open a new one. You did it right, you don't file new RFS bugs if the previous one hasn't been sponsored. > You can now download the updated package by running: > > dget -x > https://ftp.zap.org.au/pub/debian/dists/zapgroup-sid/main/source/trader_7.20-2.dsc (Please utilize mentors, mentors has some diagnositics that helps analyzing/reviewing the package, e.g lintian output.) > > - Your VCS-Git link git:// is not using an encrypted link, but the > > site supports https://. Please use https. > > Done. > > > d/copyright: > > - the directory lib/ has files which are not documented in > > d/copyright; (They have a different license and copyright) > > - same for the m4 macros > > Hmm. The files (in lib and m4) that are not my own are mostly from > the Gnulib GNU Portability Library. Rather tedious and quite a bit > of work, but I've updated the debian/copyright file to suit. > I find it interesting that you're the first Debian developer to pick > up on this: previous sponsors of the package were okay with it the > way it was. Perhaps you're more thorough! If it leads to a better > Debian package, I don't mind. > > However, I note from section 2.3 of the Debian policy manual: > > Thus, the copyright information for files in the source package > which are only part of its build process, such as autotools files, > need not be included in /usr/share/doc/PACKAGE/copyright, because > those files do not get installed into the binary package. > > My reading of that suggests there is no need to include copyright > stanzas for files in the m4 directory. Is this understanding > correct? Well, I'm used to that that they should be also documented and probably I'm more strict than other on this; Ok, then leave them alone... > This is what I've added to debian/copyright -- is this okay? > > Files: lib/* > Copyright: 1987-2024, Free Software Foundation, Inc. > License: GPL-3+ > Comment: >Some files in this directory (from the Gnulib GNU Portability Library) >are licensed by the Free Software Foundation under LGPL-2.1+; other >files are under GPL-2+. When combined with the remaining files from the >same Gnulib library, these inherit the overall GPL-3+ licence. no, that's not ok. you need to document the copyright *verbatim*, that is
Bug#1062001: RFS: trader/7.20-1 -- simple game of interstellar trading
Control: retitle -1 trader/7.20-2 -- simple game of interstellar trading Control: tags -1 - moreinfo Dear Tobias, Thank you very much for your feedback on my RFS for Star Traders, and apologies for not replying sooner -- it's been a bit of a crazy week around here... You (or anyone else) can see my latest Git tree at the following URL; this tree reflects the changes I've made as a result of your email: https://www.zap.org.au/git-browser/trader.git/tree/?h=with-debian git clone https://git.zap.org.au/git/trader.git -b with-debian I do have a few questions and observations about your comments: > d/control: > - Please remove all versions from the versioned build depends that > are fulfiled already since oldstable, e.g gettext and automake. Good catch! This is what happens when one maintains a Debian package outside the distro since 2011... Given that the Git tag for package version 7.20-1 already exists (and has been distributed!), I've released the new package as 7.20-2, with the entry for 7.20-1 removed as it has not been uploaded to Debian. I'm retitling this bug report to suit. If you prefer, I can close this RFS and open a new one. You can now download the updated package by running: dget -x https://ftp.zap.org.au/pub/debian/dists/zapgroup-sid/main/source/trader_7.20-2.dsc > - Your VCS-Git link git:// is not using an encrypted link, but the > site supports https://. Please use https. Done. > d/copyright: > - the directory lib/ has files which are not documented in > d/copyright; (They have a different license and copyright) > - same for the m4 macros Hmm. The files (in lib and m4) that are not my own are mostly from the Gnulib GNU Portability Library. Rather tedious and quite a bit of work, but I've updated the debian/copyright file to suit. I find it interesting that you're the first Debian developer to pick up on this: previous sponsors of the package were okay with it the way it was. Perhaps you're more thorough! If it leads to a better Debian package, I don't mind. However, I note from section 2.3 of the Debian policy manual: Thus, the copyright information for files in the source package which are only part of its build process, such as autotools files, need not be included in /usr/share/doc/PACKAGE/copyright, because those files do not get installed into the binary package. My reading of that suggests there is no need to include copyright stanzas for files in the m4 directory. Is this understanding correct? This is what I've added to debian/copyright -- is this okay? Files: lib/* Copyright: 1987-2024, Free Software Foundation, Inc. License: GPL-3+ Comment: Some files in this directory (from the Gnulib GNU Portability Library) are licensed by the Free Software Foundation under LGPL-2.1+; other files are under GPL-2+. When combined with the remaining files from the same Gnulib library, these inherit the overall GPL-3+ licence. Files: lib/obsolete-strings.c lib/xopen-source.h Copyright: 2018-2024, John Zaitseff License: GPL-3+ > embedded code copies: > - gnulib is packaged for Debian, any reason why you don't use the > packaged version? The upstream release I make (in this case, trader-7.20.tar.xz) includes the files from Gnulib. And in all current cases, my snapshot of Gnulib is *newer* than what is included in the gnulib Debian package (currently 20240117+stable-1 in Debian Sid, but 20210102~ebaa53c-1 in Debian Bullseye/oldstable -- for Star Traders 7.20, my snapshot is from Tue Jan 30 17:07:32 2024 +0100). I believe my code depends on the newer Gnulibs to compile. But even if it didn't, the upstream release *must* contain Gnulib as it is compiled on distributions and operating systems where Gnulib is not packaged. Rerunning "gnulib-tool --update" as part of the build process is possible, I suppose, but given that my snapshots are newer, and there are API-related changes compared to the Debian oldstable and stable snapshots of Gnulib, I'm not sure that it's worth the hassle to even try using those Debian snapshots... > - there are m4 macros from autoconf-archive. Please check if you > can use the ones from the package autoconf-archive. Unfortunately, I can't. Some of the M4 macros (particularly m4/ax_compiler_vendor.m4) contain changes that I've submitted upstream but have not yet been included. Besides, the autoconf-archive package does not seem to be part of Debian Sid anymore. > Please add some upstream metadata: > https://wiki.debian.org/UpstreamMetadata This one was new to me. I've added a simple file, although the fields are copies of what is in debian/control already: Repository: https://git.zap.org.au/data/git/trader.git Repository-Browse: https://www.zap.org.au/git-browser/trader.git/ I don't have a bug database or a separate bug submission URL (Upstream-Contact from debian/copyright is what I ask people to use), the documentation is the home page of the project, etc. Happy to
Bug#1062001: RFS: trader/7.20-1 -- simple game of interstellar trading
Control: tags -1 moreinfo Hi, some review: d/control: - Please remove all versions from the versioned build depends that are fulfiled already since oldstable, e.g gettext and automake. - Your VCS-Git link git:// is not using an encrypted link, but the site supports https://. Please use https. d/copyright: - the directory lib/ has files which are not documented in d/copyright; (They have a different license and copyright) - same for the m4 macros embedded code copies: - gnulib is packaged for Debian, any reason why you don't use the packaged version? - there are m4 macros from autoconf-archive. Please check if you can use the ones from the package autoconf-archive. Please add some upstream metadata: https://wiki.debian.org/UpstreamMetadata d/changelog - d/changelog's purpose is to document changed to the packageing, generaly not to document upstream changes, so I'd cut that down to: trader (7.20-1) unstable; urgency=low * New upstream release. * Updated to Debian Policy 4.6.2 (no changes). - lintian findings: W: trader: groff-message troff::133: warning: macro 'mR' not defined [usr/share/man/man6/trader.6.gz:1] I: trader source: public-upstream-key-not-minimal has 16 extra signature(s) for keyid 0D254111C4EE569B [debian/upstream/signing-key.asc] I: trader source: vcs-field-uses-insecure-uri Git git://git.zap.org.au/data/git/trader.git -b with-debian P: trader source: source-contains-autogenerated-gperf-data [lib/iconv_open-hpux.h] P: trader source: source-contains-autogenerated-gperf-data [lib/iconv_open-irix.h] P: trader source: source-contains-autogenerated-gperf-data [lib/iconv_open-osf.h] P: trader source: source-contains-autogenerated-gperf-data [lib/iconv_open-solaris.h] P: trader source: source-contains-autogenerated-gperf-data [lib/iconv_open-zos.h] Cheers, -- tobi On Wed, Jan 31, 2024 at 10:59:26AM +1100, John Zaitseff wrote: > Hi, Bastian et al., > > > > > 7.19-1 was never uploaded to Debian, so please remove it from > > > > the changelog. > > > > > > Would this still be the case even though I _did_ release it on > > > The ZAP Group Australia's repository? If so, how would I > > > preserve the changes listed for v7.19 -- should I just add them > > > as part of the 7.20-1 changelog entry? > > > > Yes, you should do that. Alternatively, you can upload 7.19-1 > > before uploading 7.20-1. > > I have removed the changelog entry for 7.19-1; the entry for 7.20-1 > now reads: > > trader (7.20-1) unstable; urgency=low > >* New upstream release: changed documentation (history of the game), > updated Swedish, Norwegian Bokmål, French, German, Serbian, Esperanto, > Romanian, Polish and Ukrainian translations. >* Incorporates changes made to previous upstream release (not uploaded > to Debian): new Polish, Romanian and Ukrainian translations, renamed > AppStream metainfo and desktop files. >* Require at least Gettext 0.21 and Automake 1.16 for building. >* Updated to Debian Policy 4.6.2 (no changes). > > Could you (or someone) now sponsor the package? The original link > now points to the updated package: > > dget -x > https://ftp.zap.org.au/pub/debian/dists/zapgroup-sid/main/source/trader_7.20-1.dsc > > Yours truly, > > John Zaitseff > > -- > John Zaitseff ╭───╮ Email: j.zaits...@zap.org.au > The ZAP Group │ Z │ GnuPG: 0x0D254111C4EE569B > Australia Inc. ╰───╯ https://www.zap.org.au/~john/ >
Bug#1062001: RFS: trader/7.20-1 -- simple game of interstellar trading
Package: sponsorship-requests Severity: normal Dear mentors, I am looking for a sponsor for my updated package "trader", a simple game of interstellar trading: Package name:trader Version: 7.20-1 Upstream author: John Zaitseff -- that's me! URL: https://www.zap.org.au/projects/trader/ License: GPL3+ Vcs: git://git.zap.org.au/data/git/trader.git -b with-debian Section: games It builds one binary package: trader - simple game of interstellar trading I have successfully built appropriate binaries using Debian chroots on my own server at https://ftp.zap.org.au/pub/debian/. You can download using dget with: dget -x https://ftp.zap.org.au/pub/debian/dists/zapgroup-sid/main/source/trader_7.20-1.dsc Changes since the last upload: trader (7.20-1) unstable; urgency=low * New upstream release: changed documentation (history of the game), updated Swedish, Norwegian Bokmål, French, German, Serbian, Esperanto, Romanian, Polish and Ukrainian translations. -- John Zaitseff Wed, 31 Jan 2024 06:52:27 +1100 trader (7.19-1) unstable; urgency=low * New upstream release: new Polish, Romanian and Ukrainian translations, renamed AppStream metainfo and desktop files. * Require at least Gettext 0.21 and Automake 1.16 for building. * Updated to Debian Policy 4.6.2 (no changes). -- John Zaitseff Sun, 07 Jan 2024 11:30:24 +1100 Please don't hesitate to contact me if you have any questions. I'm more than willing to work through any issues that you might identify. Thanks! Yours truly, John Zaitseff -- John Zaitseff ╭───╮ Email: j.zaits...@zap.org.au The ZAP Group │ Z │ GnuPG: 0x0D254111C4EE569B Australia Inc. ╰───╯ https://www.zap.org.au/~john/
