Bug#881525: RFS: python-ck/1.9.4

[Grigori Fursin]

Package: sponsorship-requests
Severity: normal [important for RC bugs, wishlist for new packages]

  Dear mentors,

  I am looking for a sponsor for my package "python-ck"

 * Package name    : python-ck
   Version : 1.9.4
   Upstream Author : Grigori Fursin <grigori.fur...@ctuning.org>
 * URL : https://github.com/ctuning/ck
 * License : BSD-3-Clause
   Section : python

  It builds those binary packages:

  python-ck  - Python2 light-weight knowledge manager
  python3-ck - Python3 light-weight knowledge manager

  To access further information about this package, please visit the 
following URL:


https://mentors.debian.net/package/python-ck


  Alternatively, one can download the package with dget using this 
command:


    dget -x 
https://mentors.debian.net/debian/pool/main/p/python-ck/python-ck_1.9.4.dsc


  More information about CK can be obtained from http://cKnowledge.org

  Changes since the last upload:

 * many aggregated fixes since 1.7.2
   See https://github.com/ctuning/ck/blob/master/CHANGES.txt

  Regards,
   Grigori Fursin

Bug#799268: ITP missing for package python-ck with RFS 799268 with ITP in title

[Grigori Fursin]

Thank you so much, Gianfranco,

I really appreciate your help!!!

Hope this tool will be of help to the community -
we already started received GCC/LLVM optimization results
from the volunteers for various shared workloads:
* http://cknowledge.org/repo

We plan to add more scenarios
for collaborative optimization soon!

Take care,
Grigori

On Wed, 2 Mar 2016 16:30:49 +0100 Gianfranco Costamagna 
 wrote:

>
> Hi, I fixed a lot of stuff, e.g. https links, arch: any to arch: all,
> retitled to ITP, fixed duplicate short description, fixed changelog
> date, std-version to 3.9.7, removed the conflict on python3-all (wrong),
> and something more, signed and uploaded a few seconds ago.
>
> (sorry for the long wait)
>
> thanks for the contribution to Debian!
> I'm attaching the uploaded packaging to this email.
>
> cheers, and thanks for the packaging,
>
> G.

Bug#799268: RFS: ck/1.6.2 [ITP]

[Grigori Fursin]

I think I see. Thanks, Gianfranco.
I guess I will now wait if someone will be willing
to sponsor my package and then will try finalize all that ...
Take care,
Grigori

-Original Message- 
From: Gianfranco Costamagna

Sent: Tuesday, November 10, 2015 10:17 AM
To: Grigori Fursin ; Lucas Nussbaum ; 799...@bugs.debian.org
Subject: Re: Bug#799268: RFS: ck/1.6.2 [ITP]

Hi Grigori, the RFS is already fine and you are just missing the ITP.

ITP means "I want to package this foo for Debian"
and you close it in your changelog

RFS (this bug #799268) means: I want to find a sponsor, because I'm not able
to directly upload on Debian.

this RFS is closed by your sponsor when the upload is performed, the other 
bug

(*A NEW BUG*) needs to be opened and closed in the upload in this way:

* Initial Release (Closes: #X)

where X is the ITP bug.

cheers,

G.





Il Martedì 10 Novembre 2015 10:09, Grigori Fursin 
<grigori.fur...@ctuning.org> ha scritto:

Hi Lucas,
Do you mean that I should open a separate ticket (RFS)?
Or since the package now seems to be okeish, should
I just continue searching for a sponsor?
Thanks,
Grigori


-Original Message- 
From: Lucas Nussbaum

Sent: Tuesday, November 10, 2015 9:38 AM
To: Grigori Fursin
Cc: Gianfranco Costamagna ; 799...@bugs.debian.org
Subject: Bug#799268: RFS: ck/1.6.2 [ITP]

On 07/11/15 at 16:21 +0100, Grigori Fursin wrote:

Hi Gianfranco,

After hacking various guides I managed to update python-ck
based on what you mentioned:

>https://mentors.debian.net/package/python3-ck
>this is a nack for me.
>
>You can build two binaries with the same source package, look e.g. to
>https://sources.debian.net/src/python-esmre/0.3.1-3/

I have done that and deleted separate python3-ck package.

>this includes:
>compat level --> 9
>debhelper >= 9

Done.

>ITP bug?
I changed it as ITP bug. It still complains and I guess
this can only be fixed when I find a sponsor ...


you need both an ITP bug (because it's a new package) and an RFS bug
(because you are looking for a sponsor)

Lucas 

Bug#799268: RFS: ck/1.6.2 [ITP]

[Grigori Fursin]

Hi Lucas,
Do you mean that I should open a separate ticket (RFS)? 
Or since the package now seems to be okeish, should

I just continue searching for a sponsor?
Thanks,
Grigori

-Original Message- 
From: Lucas Nussbaum 
Sent: Tuesday, November 10, 2015 9:38 AM 
To: Grigori Fursin 
Cc: Gianfranco Costamagna ; 799...@bugs.debian.org 
Subject: Bug#799268: RFS: ck/1.6.2 [ITP] 


On 07/11/15 at 16:21 +0100, Grigori Fursin wrote:

Hi Gianfranco,

After hacking various guides I managed to update python-ck
based on what you mentioned:

>https://mentors.debian.net/package/python3-ck
>this is a nack for me.
>
>You can build two binaries with the same source package, look e.g. to
>https://sources.debian.net/src/python-esmre/0.3.1-3/

I have done that and deleted separate python3-ck package.

>this includes:
>compat level --> 9
>debhelper >= 9

Done.

>ITP bug?
I changed it as ITP bug. It still complains and I guess
this can only be fixed when I find a sponsor ...


you need both an ITP bug (because it's a new package) and an RFS bug
(because you are looking for a sponsor)

Lucas

Bug#799268: RFS: ck/1.6.2 [ITP]

[Grigori Fursin]

Hi Gianfranco,

After hacking various guides I managed to update python-ck
based on what you mentioned:


https://mentors.debian.net/package/python3-ck
this is a nack for me.

You can build two binaries with the same source package, look e.g. to
https://sources.debian.net/src/python-esmre/0.3.1-3/


I have done that and deleted separate python3-ck package.


this includes:
compat level --> 9
debhelper >= 9


Done.


ITP bug?

I changed it as ITP bug. It still complains and I guess
this can only be fixed when I find a sponsor ...


rules --> export PYBUILD_NAME and use pybuild
control --> add python3 dependencies and the package

Done.


changelog --> rename it to ck?


I couldn't change it to ck, since I still release package
as python-ck ...


and maybe something more.

For sure you need to have the same codebase and two binaries.
(mentors/lintian can give you hints about what you need to change).


It seems to be fine now.

Since you are providing one binary and two libraries, you might want to 
conflict them each other


Yeap, added that and tested - seems to be working fine!


BTW
copyright needs some care:
ck/repo/module/web/php/openme.php: *No copyright* LGPL (v2.1 or later)


Thanks for noting that - I changed that to original CK license ...

There are just a few pedantic warnings about
* application-in-library-section
* library-package-name-for-application

But I can't change that - in fact I saw some notes suggesting
to just ignore (or override) this message in my case.

I hope it's ok now ;) ...

Thanks a lot again,
Grigori

Bug#799268: RFS: ck/1.6.2 [ITP]

[Grigori Fursin]

Thanks again, Gianfranco,

Will try to fix it this week (I had some problems
creating two packages from the same source
since I needed to make a patch for Python3,
but failed) ...

Have a good week,
Grigori

-Original Message- 
From: Gianfranco Costamagna

Sent: Thursday, October 01, 2015 4:03 PM
To: Grigori Fursin ; 799...@bugs.debian.org
Cc: Lucas Nussbaum
Subject: Bug#799268: RFS: ck/1.6.2 [ITP]

Hi Grigori,



By the way, I also uploaded python3-ck:



https://mentors.debian.net/package/python3-ck


this is a nack for me.

You can build two binaries with the same source package, look e.g. to
https://sources.debian.net/src/python-esmre/0.3.1-3/

this includes:
compat level --> 9
debhelper >= 9
ITP bug?
rules --> export PYBUILD_NAME and use pybuild
control --> add python3 dependencies and the package
changelog --> rename it to ck?

and maybe something more.

For sure you need to have the same codebase and two binaries.
(mentors/lintian can give you hints about what you need to change).

Since you are providing one binary and two libraries, you might want to 
conflict them each other


BTW
copyright needs some care:
ck/repo/module/web/php/openme.php: *No copyright* LGPL (v2.1 or later)


and maybe others.

cheers,

G. 

Bug#799268: RFS: ck/1.6.2 [ITP]

[Grigori Fursin]

Dear colleagues,

I fixed all the issues with my package, added the latest
upstream release, and uploaded the new version to Debian mentors:

http://mentors.debian.net/package/python-ck

The only problem is that I have an error message there
"Bug #799268 does not belong to this package"

Can it be because I originally submitted a request
for package 'ck' and not 'python-ck'?

Is there a way to change it?

Thanks a lot and have a good week,
Grigori


-Original Message----- 
From: Grigori Fursin

Sent: Saturday, September 19, 2015 11:18 AM
To: Gianfranco Costamagna ; Lucas Nussbaum ; 799...@bugs.debian.org
Subject: Bug#799268: RFS: ck/1.6.2 [ITP]

Actually, it's done more or less like that.
ck is a batch script that sets environment and calls python module.

So, it should be easy to change the name if will be required.

However, I made some search and didn't not find obvious conflicts so far ;)
...

Thanks,
Grigori

-Original Message- 
From: Gianfranco Costamagna

Sent: Friday, September 18, 2015 4:02 PM
To: Lucas Nussbaum ; Grigori Fursin ; 799...@bugs.debian.org
Subject: Bug#799268: RFS: ck/1.6.2 [ITP]






Oh, I didn't know that :( . Will it really be a problem (I didn't see any
tool called ck yet)? The problem is that our users now share some 
artifacts

in this format and they use this name (in scripts or internal calls),
so changing this name now will be a nightmare :( ...


I'm not sure if there's an official policy about that. It's probably
worth trying to upload with a ck binary, and see if someone complains :)




I guess you can always install a longer name and create a symlink to ck.
(and bother upstream about it)


this way people can move to the new binary, and if somebody complain you can
"safely" drop the symlink.

(or use some "update-alternative" tools I don't remember how)


Just my .02$

G. 

Bug#799268: RFS: ck/1.6.2 [ITP]

[Grigori Fursin]

Hi Gianfranco,

But I already retitled it some time ago as you
suggested (including the latest upstream version)
and it's now: RFS: python-ck/1.6.11-1 [ITP]

My submitted package name is also python-ck.

However, it still says that
"Bug #799268 does not belong to this package"

That's why I am not sure what's wrong :( ...

Maybe the package name is taken from the body
of the original message, i.e. "ck" instead of "python-ck"?

Sorry for bothering with that and thanks for your help,
Grigori






-Original Message- 
From: Gianfranco Costamagna

Sent: Monday, September 28, 2015 10:21 AM
To: Grigori Fursin ; 799...@bugs.debian.org
Subject: Bug#799268: RFS: ck/1.6.2 [ITP]

Hi,

https://www.debian.org/Bugs/server-control


retitle is the keyword :)

cheers,

G.


Il Lunedì 28 Settembre 2015 10:15, Grigori Fursin 
<grigori.fur...@ctuning.org> ha scritto:

Dear colleagues,

I fixed all the issues with my package, added the latest
upstream release, and uploaded the new version to Debian mentors:

http://mentors.debian.net/package/python-ck

The only problem is that I have an error message there
"Bug #799268 does not belong to this package"

Can it be because I originally submitted a request
for package 'ck' and not 'python-ck'?

Is there a way to change it?

Thanks a lot and have a good week,
Grigori



-----Original Message- 
From: Grigori Fursin

Sent: Saturday, September 19, 2015 11:18 AM
To: Gianfranco Costamagna ; Lucas Nussbaum ; 799...@bugs.debian.org
Subject: Bug#799268: RFS: ck/1.6.2 [ITP]

Actually, it's done more or less like that.
ck is a batch script that sets environment and calls python module.

So, it should be easy to change the name if will be required.

However, I made some search and didn't not find obvious conflicts so far ;)
...

Thanks,
Grigori

-Original Message- 
From: Gianfranco Costamagna

Sent: Friday, September 18, 2015 4:02 PM
To: Lucas Nussbaum ; Grigori Fursin ; 799...@bugs.debian.org
Subject: Bug#799268: RFS: ck/1.6.2 [ITP]






Oh, I didn't know that :( . Will it really be a problem (I didn't see any
tool called ck yet)? The problem is that our users now share some
artifacts
in this format and they use this name (in scripts or internal calls),
so changing this name now will be a nightmare :( ...


I'm not sure if there's an official policy about that. It's probably
worth trying to upload with a ck binary, and see if someone complains :)




I guess you can always install a longer name and create a symlink to ck.
(and bother upstream about it)


this way people can move to the new binary, and if somebody complain you can
"safely" drop the symlink.

(or use some "update-alternative" tools I don't remember how)


Just my .02$

G. 

Bug#799268: RFS: ck/1.6.2 [ITP]

[Grigori Fursin]

Oh, I see - I was jumping too far ;) !

I actually still don't have an official sponsor,
so I removed "closing bug" from the changelog,
uploaded a new package (it doesn't have
errors anymore), and will now be patiently
waiting for a sponsor ...

By the way, I also uploaded python3-ck:
https://mentors.debian.net/package/python3-ck

Thanks a lot for your help,
Grigori

-Original Message- 
From: Gianfranco Costamagna

Sent: Monday, September 28, 2015 10:38 AM
To: Grigori Fursin ; 799...@bugs.debian.org
Subject: Re: Bug#799268: RFS: ck/1.6.2 [ITP]

You need to open an ITP bug
https://www.debian.org/devel/wnpp/
and close *that* bug.

the RFS bug is closed by your sponsor when the upload is performed.

cheers,

G.





Il Lunedì 28 Settembre 2015 10:34, Grigori Fursin 
<grigori.fur...@ctuning.org> ha scritto:

Hi Gianfranco,

But I already retitled it some time ago as you
suggested (including the latest upstream version)
and it's now: RFS: python-ck/1.6.11-1 [ITP]

My submitted package name is also python-ck.

However, it still says that
"Bug #799268 does not belong to this package"

That's why I am not sure what's wrong :( ...

Maybe the package name is taken from the body
of the original message, i.e. "ck" instead of "python-ck"?

Sorry for bothering with that and thanks for your help,
Grigori







-Original Message- 
From: Gianfranco Costamagna

Sent: Monday, September 28, 2015 10:21 AM
To: Grigori Fursin ; 799...@bugs.debian.org
Subject: Bug#799268: RFS: ck/1.6.2 [ITP]

Hi,

https://www.debian.org/Bugs/server-control


retitle is the keyword :)

cheers,

G.


Il Lunedì 28 Settembre 2015 10:15, Grigori Fursin
<grigori.fur...@ctuning.org> ha scritto:
Dear colleagues,

I fixed all the issues with my package, added the latest
upstream release, and uploaded the new version to Debian mentors:

http://mentors.debian.net/package/python-ck

The only problem is that I have an error message there
"Bug #799268 does not belong to this package"

Can it be because I originally submitted a request
for package 'ck' and not 'python-ck'?

Is there a way to change it?

Thanks a lot and have a good week,
Grigori



-Original Message- 
From: Grigori Fursin

Sent: Saturday, September 19, 2015 11:18 AM
To: Gianfranco Costamagna ; Lucas Nussbaum ; 799...@bugs.debian.org
Subject: Bug#799268: RFS: ck/1.6.2 [ITP]

Actually, it's done more or less like that.
ck is a batch script that sets environment and calls python module.

So, it should be easy to change the name if will be required.

However, I made some search and didn't not find obvious conflicts so far ;)
...

Thanks,
Grigori

-Original Message- 
From: Gianfranco Costamagna

Sent: Friday, September 18, 2015 4:02 PM
To: Lucas Nussbaum ; Grigori Fursin ; 799...@bugs.debian.org
Subject: Bug#799268: RFS: ck/1.6.2 [ITP]






Oh, I didn't know that :( . Will it really be a problem (I didn't see any
tool called ck yet)? The problem is that our users now share some
artifacts
in this format and they use this name (in scripts or internal calls),
so changing this name now will be a nightmare :( ...


I'm not sure if there's an official policy about that. It's probably
worth trying to upload with a ck binary, and see if someone complains :)




I guess you can always install a longer name and create a symlink to ck.
(and bother upstream about it)


this way people can move to the new binary, and if somebody complain you can
"safely" drop the symlink.

(or use some "update-alternative" tools I don't remember how)


Just my .02$

G. 

Bug#799268: RFS: ck/1.6.2 [ITP]

[Grigori Fursin]

Actually, it's done more or less like that.
ck is a batch script that sets environment and calls python module.

So, it should be easy to change the name if will be required.

However, I made some search and didn't not find obvious conflicts so far ;) 
...


Thanks,
Grigori

-Original Message- 
From: Gianfranco Costamagna

Sent: Friday, September 18, 2015 4:02 PM
To: Lucas Nussbaum ; Grigori Fursin ; 799...@bugs.debian.org
Subject: Bug#799268: RFS: ck/1.6.2 [ITP]






Oh, I didn't know that :( . Will it really be a problem (I didn't see any
tool called ck yet)? The problem is that our users now share some 
artifacts

in this format and they use this name (in scripts or internal calls),
so changing this name now will be a nightmare :( ...


I'm not sure if there's an official policy about that. It's probably
worth trying to upload with a ck binary, and see if someone complains :)




I guess you can always install a longer name and create a symlink to ck.
(and bother upstream about it)


this way people can move to the new binary, and if somebody complain you can
"safely" drop the symlink.

(or use some "update-alternative" tools I don't remember how)


Just my .02$

G. 

Bug#799268: RFS: ck/1.6.2 [ITP]

[Grigori Fursin]

Sure, I will check what can be done.
It's just that we use it much more as app at the moment
then library, so maybe we can just keep it as it for now.
If we will see increasing use as library, we can separate them ...
Thanks again and have a good weekend,
Grigori



-Original Message- 
From: Lucas Nussbaum

Sent: Friday, September 18, 2015 3:49 PM
To: Grigori Fursin ; 799...@bugs.debian.org
Subject: Bug#799268: RFS: ck/1.6.2 [ITP]

On 18/09/15 at 12:25 +0200, Grigori Fursin wrote:

Hi Lucas,

Thank you very much for your time to check it - really appreciated!
And sorry for some mix ups - it's my first time trying to package
something for Debian ;) ...

>Must be fixed:
-> Given that this software is not specific to Debian, and publishes
>releases on its homepage, this should not be a native package. instead,
>its version should be of the form 1.6.2-1, 1.6.2-2, so that the Debian
>revision (the part after the '-') can be changed when packaging changes
>are made, without making a new upstream release.

Oh, I see. I will check how to fix that ...

>- I'm not familiar with python packaging, but when building this
>package, I only get a python2 package (and no python3 package). There's
>something wrong here. I wonder if it's related to the fact that the
>version of python-stdeb that you seem to be using (according to the
>headers in say debian/rules) is very old. Given that Debian packages are
>uploaded targetting Debian 'unstable', it's better to do Debian
>development in unstable or testing (possibly in a chroot).

I created a separate package for python3-ck but it's true that it
doesn't look like it was uploaded - need to check that ...

>Should probably be fixed:
>- If I understand ck correctly, it's more an application than a library:
>users are not really exposed to the fact that it's written in python,
>and the python lib is not supposed to be used by third parties (it can
>be used in ipython, but the target is not really to build a third party
>application on top of it).
>If that's correct, then it should not be packaged like a python library,
>but more like an application (that happens to be written in python).

In fact, it is both. It can be used as a standalone python library or it 
can

be used as an application (via ck batch script).


Then you might want to package the application separately, so that the
library packages are really libraries.


>- there's another problem: namespace pollution in few-characters
>commands. It's usually a bad practice to name something (that is not a
>historical unix tool) with 1 or 2 letters only.

Oh, I didn't know that :( . Will it really be a problem (I didn't see any
tool called ck yet)? The problem is that our users now share some 
artifacts

in this format and they use this name (in scripts or internal calls),
so changing this name now will be a nightmare :( ...


I'm not sure if there's an official policy about that. It's probably
worth trying to upload with a ck binary, and see if someone complains :)

Lucas 

Bug#799268: RFS: ck/1.6.2 [ITP]

[Grigori Fursin]

Sorry for mixing this up and thanks again for your help...
Grigori

-Original Message- 
From: Lucas Nussbaum

Sent: Thursday, September 17, 2015 10:44 PM
To: Grigori Fursin ; 799...@bugs.debian.org
Cc: Ghislain Vaillant ; cont...@bugs.debian.org
Subject: Re: Bug#799268: RFS: ck/1.6.2 [ITP]

reassign 799268 sponsorship-requests
retitle 799268 RFS: python-ck/1.6.3 [ITP]
thanks

Actually, it should remain assigned to sponsorship-requests (and there
was a quoting problem)

This should be fixed now.

Lucas


On 17/09/15 at 14:19 +0200, Grigori Fursin wrote:

I managed to change the title of this bug report to "python-ck"
and delete old "ck" package. I didn't manage to update the original
message with new links, but I guess it's not necessary ...
Thanks a lot,
Grigori

-Original Message- From: Ghislain Vaillant
Sent: Thursday, September 17, 2015 1:40 PM
To: Grigori Fursin ; 799...@bugs.debian.org
Subject: Re: Bug#799268: RFS: ck/1.6.2 [ITP]

You can delete it and retitle this bug report [1] with the new source
package name.

[1] https://wiki.debian.org/HowtoUseBTS

Ghislain


On 17/09/15 12:37, Grigori Fursin wrote:
>Hi Ghislain,
>
>Thanks a lot for quick check!
>I renamed source package to python-ck and uploaded it:
>https://mentors.debian.net/package/python-ck
>
>However, what should I do with the previous package?
>Should I delete it, or should I just put a note with a link
>to a new package?
>Thanks a lot,
>Grigori
>
>
>-Original Message- From: Ghislain Vaillant Sent: Thursday,
>September 17, 2015 1:09 PM To: Grigori Fursin ; 799...@bugs.debian.org
>Subject: Re: Bug#799268: RFS: ck/1.6.2 [ITP]
>On 17/09/15 11:43, Grigori Fursin wrote:
>>Package: sponsorship-requests
>>Severity: wishlist
>>Dear mentors,
>>I am looking for a sponsor for my package "ck"
>>* Package name: ck
>>   Version : 1.6.2
>>   Upstream Author : Grigori Fursin <grigori.fur...@ctuning.org>
>>* URL : http://github.com/ctuning/ck
>>* License : BSD-3-clause
>>   Section : python
>>It builds those binary packages:
>>python-ck  - Collective Knowledge Framework to share and reuse
>>research artifacts (Python 2)
>>python3-ck - Collective Knowledge Framework to share and reuse
>>research artifacts (Python 3)
>>To access further information about this package, please visit the
>>following URL:
>>http://mentors.debian.net/package/ck
>>Alternatively, one can download the package with dget using this
>>command:
>>dget -x http://mentors.debian.net/debian/pool/main/c/ck/ck_1.6.2.dsc
>>More information about hello can be obtained
>>from http://github.com/ctuning/ck/wiki .
>>Regards,
>>   Grigori Fursin
>
>Since this is a pure Python package, may I suggest to rename the source
>package to "python-ck" instead of "ck"?
>
>Kind regards,
>Ghislain 

Bug#799268: RFS: ck/1.6.2 [ITP]

[Grigori Fursin]

Hi Lucas,

Thank you very much for your time to check it - really appreciated!
And sorry for some mix ups - it's my first time trying to package
something for Debian ;) ...


Must be fixed:

-> Given that this software is not specific to Debian, and publishes

releases on its homepage, this should not be a native package. instead,
its version should be of the form 1.6.2-1, 1.6.2-2, so that the Debian
revision (the part after the '-') can be changed when packaging changes
are made, without making a new upstream release.


Oh, I see. I will check how to fix that ...


- I'm not familiar with python packaging, but when building this
package, I only get a python2 package (and no python3 package). There's
something wrong here. I wonder if it's related to the fact that the
version of python-stdeb that you seem to be using (according to the
headers in say debian/rules) is very old. Given that Debian packages are
uploaded targetting Debian 'unstable', it's better to do Debian
development in unstable or testing (possibly in a chroot).


I created a separate package for python3-ck but it's true that it
doesn't look like it was uploaded - need to check that ...


Should probably be fixed:
- If I understand ck correctly, it's more an application than a library:
users are not really exposed to the fact that it's written in python,
and the python lib is not supposed to be used by third parties (it can
be used in ipython, but the target is not really to build a third party
application on top of it).
If that's correct, then it should not be packaged like a python library,
but more like an application (that happens to be written in python).


In fact, it is both. It can be used as a standalone python library 
or it can be used as an application (via ck batch script).



- there's another problem: namespace pollution in few-characters
commands. It's usually a bad practice to name something (that is not a
historical unix tool) with 1 or 2 letters only.


Oh, I didn't know that :( . Will it really be a problem (I didn't see any
tool called ck yet)? The problem is that our users now share some artifacts
in this format and they use this name (in scripts or internal calls),
so changing this name now will be a nightmare :( ...


Could be fixed:
- The description is a bit too long by Debian standards.


Ok. I will reduce it...

Thanks a lot again for your comments. I will try to fix them soon!
Have a good weekend,
Grigori

Bug#799268: RFS: ck/1.6.2 [ITP]

[Grigori Fursin]

Hi Ghislain,

Thanks a lot for quick check! 


I renamed source package to python-ck and uploaded it:
https://mentors.debian.net/package/python-ck

However, what should I do with the previous package?
Should I delete it, or should I just put a note with a link
to a new package? 


Thanks a lot,
Grigori


-Original Message- 
From: Ghislain Vaillant 
Sent: Thursday, September 17, 2015 1:09 PM 
To: Grigori Fursin ; 799...@bugs.debian.org 
Subject: Re: Bug#799268: RFS: ck/1.6.2 [ITP] 


On 17/09/15 11:43, Grigori Fursin wrote:

Package: sponsorship-requests
Severity: wishlist
Dear mentors,
I am looking for a sponsor for my package "ck"
* Package name: ck
   Version : 1.6.2
   Upstream Author : Grigori Fursin <grigori.fur...@ctuning.org>
* URL : http://github.com/ctuning/ck
* License : BSD-3-clause
   Section : python
It builds those binary packages:
python-ck  - Collective Knowledge Framework to share and reuse
research artifacts (Python 2)
python3-ck - Collective Knowledge Framework to share and reuse
research artifacts (Python 3)
To access further information about this package, please visit the
following URL:
http://mentors.debian.net/package/ck
Alternatively, one can download the package with dget using this command:
dget -x http://mentors.debian.net/debian/pool/main/c/ck/ck_1.6.2.dsc
More information about hello can be obtained
from http://github.com/ctuning/ck/wiki .
Regards,
   Grigori Fursin


Since this is a pure Python package, may I suggest to rename the source 
package to "python-ck" instead of "ck"?


Kind regards,
Ghislain

Bug#799268: RFS: ck/1.6.2 [ITP]

[Grigori Fursin]

Package: sponsorship-requests
Severity: wishlist

Dear mentors,

I am looking for a sponsor for my package "ck"

* Package name: ck
  Version : 1.6.2
  Upstream Author : Grigori Fursin <grigori.fur...@ctuning.org>
* URL : http://github.com/ctuning/ck
* License : BSD-3-clause
  Section : python

It builds those binary packages:

   python-ck  - Collective Knowledge Framework to share and reuse research 
artifacts (Python 2)
   python3-ck - Collective Knowledge Framework to share and reuse research 
artifacts (Python 3)

To access further information about this package, please visit the following 
URL:

 http://mentors.debian.net/package/ck


Alternatively, one can download the package with dget using this command:

   dget -x http://mentors.debian.net/debian/pool/main/c/ck/ck_1.6.2.dsc

More information about hello can be obtained 
from http://github.com/ctuning/ck/wiki .

Regards,
  Grigori Fursin

Bug#799268: RFS: ck/1.6.2 [ITP]

[Grigori Fursin]

I managed to change the title of this bug report to "python-ck"
and delete old "ck" package. I didn't manage to update the original
message with new links, but I guess it's not necessary ...
Thanks a lot,
Grigori

-Original Message- 
From: Ghislain Vaillant

Sent: Thursday, September 17, 2015 1:40 PM
To: Grigori Fursin ; 799...@bugs.debian.org
Subject: Re: Bug#799268: RFS: ck/1.6.2 [ITP]

You can delete it and retitle this bug report [1] with the new source
package name.

[1] https://wiki.debian.org/HowtoUseBTS

Ghislain


On 17/09/15 12:37, Grigori Fursin wrote:

Hi Ghislain,

Thanks a lot for quick check!
I renamed source package to python-ck and uploaded it:
https://mentors.debian.net/package/python-ck

However, what should I do with the previous package?
Should I delete it, or should I just put a note with a link
to a new package?
Thanks a lot,
Grigori


-Original Message- From: Ghislain Vaillant Sent: Thursday,
September 17, 2015 1:09 PM To: Grigori Fursin ; 799...@bugs.debian.org
Subject: Re: Bug#799268: RFS: ck/1.6.2 [ITP]
On 17/09/15 11:43, Grigori Fursin wrote:

Package: sponsorship-requests
Severity: wishlist
Dear mentors,
I am looking for a sponsor for my package "ck"
* Package name: ck
   Version : 1.6.2
   Upstream Author : Grigori Fursin <grigori.fur...@ctuning.org>
* URL : http://github.com/ctuning/ck
* License : BSD-3-clause
   Section : python
It builds those binary packages:
python-ck  - Collective Knowledge Framework to share and reuse
research artifacts (Python 2)
python3-ck - Collective Knowledge Framework to share and reuse
research artifacts (Python 3)
To access further information about this package, please visit the
following URL:
http://mentors.debian.net/package/ck
Alternatively, one can download the package with dget using this command:
dget -x http://mentors.debian.net/debian/pool/main/c/ck/ck_1.6.2.dsc
More information about hello can be obtained
from http://github.com/ctuning/ck/wiki .
Regards,
   Grigori Fursin


Since this is a pure Python package, may I suggest to rename the source
package to "python-ck" instead of "ck"?

Kind regards,
Ghislain