Andreas,
Many thanks for the clarifications. Below is my progress report for today. I will keep echoing all the steps in a verbose manner at the risk of being repetitive with the instructions on your side. The hope is that this may prove useful to the next packager in training. -------------------------- On Sat, Jan 21, 2012 at 5:39 AM, Andreas Tille <[email protected]> wrote: > > svn co svn+ssh://svn.debian.org/svn/debian-med/ > > > ----------- Thanks to your instructions, and to additional advice from Olivier Sallou, I followed the instructions in: http://debian-med.alioth.debian.org/docs/policy.html#ssh-tips and the instructions in the Wiki article: http://wiki.debian.org/Alioth/SSH Then created a new SSH key pair, with the command ssh-keygen -t rsa luis_ibanez_debian_rsa used a long passphrase. put the pair of files it in my ~/.ssh directory edited my the file ~/.ssh/config and added: Host svn.debian.org git.debian.org bzr.debian.org hg.debian.org darcs.debian.org arch.debian.org alioth.debian.org User luisusernameinalioth IdentityFile ~/.ssh/luis_ibanez_debian_rsa Went to my account in https://alioth.debian.org/account/ and added my public key in https://alioth.debian.org/account/editsshkeys.php Waited one hour for my public key to be picked up in the server renewal system. Then was able to do: ssh alioth.debian.org and get to login successfully. Then did: svn co svn+ssh://svn.debian.org/svn/debian-med and successfully got a full checkout of the repository So, Task (1): Get SVN repository has been completed. MoM Wiki page. Please read > > http://debian-med.alioth.debian.org/docs/policy.html > > Excellent, Thanks for the link. I have now read the document, but I'm sure that will have to reread it a couple of times for all this content to sink in... :-) Question: The policy document says that if I intent to work in a package I should report that to http://www.debian.org/devel/wnpp/#l1 "If you intent to work on a Debian package you should follow the normal Debian rules<http://www.debian.org/devel/wnpp/#l1> and file a WNPP bug report." Looking at the list of the Debian-med blend http://debian-med.alioth.debian.org/tasks/ It looks like fis-gtm is here "Hospital Information Systems": http://debian-med.alioth.debian.org/tasks/his and that a WNPP report is here: http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=541239 Should I do anything about this at this point ? - So, Task (2): Read the policy document, is marked as done...with the qualification that this is probably first of many reads to come... :-) > > 4. tar -xzf *.orig.tar.gz > > > > > The files turned out to be placed > > one directory above "trunk" in: > > > > debian-med/trunk/packages/fis-gtm/fis-gtm-server > > > > Doing "ls -l" at that level showed : > > > > fis-gtm-server_54002B.orig.tar.gz -> gtm_V54002B_linux_i686_src.tar.gz > > gtm_V54002B_linux_i686_src.tar.gz > > tags > > trunk > > > > In this directory, then I did: > > > > tar -xzf *.orig.tar.gz > > > > it went smoothly and produced: > > > > COPYING > > README > > sr_i386 > > sr_linux > > sr_port > > sr_port_cm > > sr_unix > > sr_unix_cm > > sr_unix_gnp > > sr_unix_nsb > > sr_x86_64 > > sr_x86_regs > > tags > > trunk > > Uhmm, perhaps I should have checked this first what you get. Fis-gtm is > coming from uspstream in a what we call "dirty archive". It does not > unpack in a single target directory but rather in your current path. > This causes trouble and should be avoided upstream. I have not checked > whether recent dpkg-buildpackage can cope with this when manually > unpacking into a separate directory (I think I remember vaguely that > this might work - probably yes because Thorsten Alteholz did not take > any means to work around this). We are now in the comfortable situation > that we have you as upstream here in the boat. So I would like you to > talk to those poeple who are responsible to release the distribution > tarball and ask them to unpack the tarball to some directory, say > > gtm-V54002B > > and not straigt into the current working directory. > > Got it. I just contacted the upstream team at fisglobal. We should be able to work with them to make this change. > Because I want to stick to my mentoring role I'd like to give an > additional hint: If I see a situation where I have a technical question > like "How to handle a dirty tarball that unpacks to current working > directory?" I would ask the mailing list [email protected] > where you usually get good advise what to do. But in our current > situation we do not need to answer this question immediately (see > below). > Got it. Just to follow with the exercise, I subscribed to the list at: http://lists.debian.org/debian-mentors/ > > > Google led me to this document: > > http://debianpaket.de/svn-buildpackage/index.html > > > > (put this path on hold, since it > > requires concentrated reading..) > > Right, you need some time until you get everything by heart. > > (This doc is still in my list of things to read, so task (3) in my list is still pending) > > > B) Simply > > > cp -a debian <source_directory> > > > cd <source_directory> > > > debuild > > > > > In path (B), > > > > > > being in the directory > > > > debian-med/trunk/packages/fis-gtm/fis-gtm-server/trunk > > > > > > did the commands: > > > > cp -a debian gtmsource > > cd gtmsource/ > > debuild > > > > > > and got back the message: > > > > debuild: found debian/changelog for package fis-gtm-server in the > directory > > /tmp/debian-med/trunk/packages/fis-gtm/fis-gtm-server/trunk > > but this directory name does not match the package name according to the > > regex PACKAGE(-.+)?. > > > > To run debuild on this package, see the --check-dirname-level and > > --check-dirname-regex options; run debuild --help for more info. > > Well, I think I started at an uninformed state when I gave my advise. I > now tried to do the very same as you and I unpacked to a clean directory, > copied the debian/ dir into it and tried: > > fis-gtm-server_54002B$ debuild > dpkg-buildpackage -rfakeroot -D -us -uc > dpkg-buildpackage: source package fis-gtm-server > dpkg-buildpackage: source version 54002A-1 > dpkg-buildpackage: source changed by Thorsten Alteholz <[email protected] > > > dpkg-source --before-build fis-gtm-server_54002B > dpkg-buildpackage: host architecture amd64 > dpkg-checkbuilddeps: Unmet build dependencies: libgpgme11-dev > fis-gtm-initial > dpkg-buildpackage: warning: Build dependencies/conflicts unsatisfied; > aborting. > > > Ok, I see. I managed to retrace your steps with: typing commands: cd debian-med/trunk/packages/fis-gtm/fis-gtm-server/trunk/ make -f debian/rules get-orig-source got response: uscan --force-download fis-gtm-server: Version (54002B) available on remote site: http://qa.debian.org/watch/sf.php/fis-gtm/gtm_V54002B_linux_i686_src.tar.gz (local version is 54002A) fis-gtm-server: Successfully downloaded updated package gtm_V54002B_linux_i686_src.tar.gz and symlinked fis-gtm-server_54002B.orig.tar.gz to it then typed commands: mkdir gtm_54002B cd gtm_54002B tar -xzf ../../*.orig.tar.gz cd .. cp -a debian gtm_54002B cd gtm_54002B debuild and got the message: This package has a Debian revision number but there does not seem to be an appropriate original tar file or .orig directory in the parent directory; (expected one of fis-gtm-server_54002A.orig.tar.gz, fis-gtm-server_54002A.orig.tar.bz2, fis-gtm-server_54002A.orig.tar.lzma or gtm_54002B.orig) continue anyway? (y/n) y dpkg-buildpackage -rfakeroot -D -us -uc dpkg-buildpackage: set CFLAGS to default value: -g -O2 dpkg-buildpackage: set CPPFLAGS to default value: dpkg-buildpackage: set LDFLAGS to default value: -Wl,-Bsymbolic-functions dpkg-buildpackage: set FFLAGS to default value: -g -O2 dpkg-buildpackage: set CXXFLAGS to default value: -g -O2 dpkg-buildpackage: source package fis-gtm-server dpkg-buildpackage: source version 54002A-1 dpkg-buildpackage: source changed by Thorsten Alteholz <[email protected]> dpkg-buildpackage: host architecture amd64 dpkg-checkbuilddeps: Unmet build dependencies: debhelper (>= 8) tcsh | csh | c-shell libgpgme11-dev fis-gtm-initial dpkg-buildpackage: warning: Build dependencies/conflicts unsatisfied; aborting. dpkg-buildpackage: warning: (Use -d flag to override.) debuild: fatal error at line 1340: dpkg-buildpackage -rfakeroot -D -us -uc failed So, I think we are in the same page here. I'm also missing the "libgpgme11-dev" package, but had no trouble installing it with: sudo apt-get install libgpgme11-dev This shows two things: I'm missing on my box the package libgpgme11-dev > which could be easily installed. However, the package fis-gtm-initial > should be installed as well and you guess that this package can not yet > be easily installed. :-) > > Got it. > So sorry for missguiding you in the first place - we need to start with > this first. I now checked what Thorsten did. When doing so I realised > that it was a bit outdated. Due to changes on our main developmet > server we larned that the way we specified the fields Vcs-Svn and > Vcs-Browser not correctly (Debian Med policy now fiyxed but it was > recommending a wrong spelling). So I fixed this and I also added the > deep link fis-gtm-initial-i386 to guide directly to our packaging for > fis-gtm-initial. Yeap. I see your updates in svn. > This package should be now in our focus because we at > first need to bootstrap GT.M (well, you have choosen a complex package > for the beginning - if you manage this one you can do probably 99.9% of > all Debian packages. ;-)) > > Double happiness... :-) > If you look at the svn log of the commited revision 9356 Got it: http://anonscm.debian.org/viewvc/debian-med?view=revision&revision=9356 I see the changes in: http://anonscm.debian.org/viewvc/debian-med/trunk/packages/fis-gtm/fis-gtm-initial-i386/trunk/debian/control?r1=9356&r2=9355&pathrev=9356 http://anonscm.debian.org/viewvc/debian-med/trunk/packages/fis-gtm/fis-gtm-initial-i386/trunk/debian/changelog?r1=9356&r2=9355&pathrev=9356 > I not only > changed the file debian/control but also debian/changelog. For not yet > uploaded packages this is ... how to say ... voluntary. Usually the > first upload of a Debian package has only one entry saying "Initial > upload". However, there is no reason not to specify what we changed and > for the purpose of MoM I decided to be pretty verbose to guide you > patiently as promised. > > Yes, your details here are very helpful. Now I can connect the dots with the instructions in the policy document about the file "debian/control": http://debian-med.alioth.debian.org/docs/policy.html#debian-control and the file "debian/changelog": http://debian-med.alioth.debian.org/docs/policy.html#debian-changelog When you edit debian changelog the best thing you can do is to move > do the directory below the debian/ dir (where you could type > `edit debian/changelog`). There you do > > dch (or debchange - dch is the shortcut for lazy people) > > This brings up your $EDITOR setting the date properly and will even > inject a new section for *your* changelog entries - quite practical > if you ask me. Yeap, I manage to replicate this. In the directory: debian-med/trunk/packages/fis-gtm/fis-gtm-server/trunk typed: debchange and got Vim to open the file with my name conveniently inserted. (then quit without modifying the file). Moreover some syntax checking is done after editing. > If you want to inject a new upstream version you do > > dch -i > > which is what I actually did for the new upstream version. > > mm, I have a question here: I see that you replaced the GTM version (54002A-1) with the GTM version (54002A-2) but the fis-gtm version that is available at sourceforge: http://sourceforge.net/projects/fis-gtm/ is: (54002B) Is there a reason for sticking to (54002A-2) instead of going after (54002B) ? > Please also notice the target distribution field which I setted to > "UNRELEASED" (also for the previous version). This is described in > Debian Med policy and tells other people of the team that this is work > in progress. (You sometimes find bad examples in our SVN where people > just set "unstable" which is the distribution the upload is finally > targeting to - we want to do proper work and use UNRELEASED, right.) > > Got it. Yes I see the explanation in the policy document at: http://debian-med.alioth.debian.org/docs/policy.html#debian-changelog > > Coming back to my previous advise. Please replace in my advise "server" > by "initial" and try again. Please pay specifiv attention to the script > debian/get-orig-source. You can read more about its purpose in our > policy document. It is a work around dirty tarballs and in this case > specifically reflects the extraordinary complexity of the fis-gtm case. > I have to admit that we do *not* have a typical package, but anyway we > should try to fight our way. > > Ok, I'll attack this now. Will focus on the package: "fis-gtm-initial" > I hope so. As I said I'm no svn-buildpackage expert. You might like to > ask separate specific questions here on the Debian Med list. > > I'll skip the path (A) on svn-buildpackage by now, and stick to your recipe for path (B), if that is OK with you. > > 4) I can use advice on what went wrong > > when attempting path (B). > > Wrong package - my fault. > > Got it. Thanks. Will focus now then on: "fis-gtm-initial". Thanks Luis for your work. I really have to admit that I'm very happy > how you were dealing with your first tasks. You did not gave up on the > first steps (ssh) but went over to other tasks fighting hard against my > incomplete advises. I'm really happy that we startet MoM and I'm quite > positive that it will be work and fun at the same time - which finally > is the good thing in Free Software. > > Many thanks for your guidance. If I was not in the MoM program, I would have not dared to come thus far. :-) > Hope my explanations bring you a bit foreward and looking foreward for > your response about new success and failure stories. > > Yes, they are very helpful. So, I'm now going for coffee :-) and will do a second try, this time focusing on "fis-gtm-initial". Many Thanks Luis
