Bug#644943: Please switch source package to OCE
Hi Denis, On Thu, 2011-12-01 at 23:13 +0100, D. Barbier wrote: On 2011/11/21 D. Barbier wrote: On 2011/11/21 Adam C Powell IV: On Thu, 2011-11-17 at 07:49 +0100, D. Barbier wrote: Thanks Adam for your upload. You're welcome, sorry it took so long. There's a problem with the package copyright, see the attached. I think this will only require a simple patch to debian/copyright, and can get to it in a couple of days. Indeed, I forgot about those new files. We also added src/OSD/gettime_osx.h (BSD3), that should be all. Hello Adam, I updated debian/copyright, can you please check and upload? Thanks. Wow, you did a complete update of debian/copyright, thanks! I'm sorry I was so lame and didn't get to it until now. I switched UNRELEASED to unstable and am building now, should be able to upload tonight (and will push the change and new tag back to alioth when it's done). -Adam -- GPG fingerprint: D54D 1AEE B11C CE9B A02B C5DD 526F 01E8 564E E4B6 Engineering consulting with open source tools http://www.opennovation.com/ signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part
Bug#644943: Please switch source package to OCE
On Sun, 2011-12-04 at 10:10 -0500, Adam C Powell IV wrote: On Thu, 2011-12-01 at 23:13 +0100, D. Barbier wrote: On 2011/11/21 D. Barbier wrote: On 2011/11/21 Adam C Powell IV: On Thu, 2011-11-17 at 07:49 +0100, D. Barbier wrote: Thanks Adam for your upload. You're welcome, sorry it took so long. There's a problem with the package copyright, see the attached. I think this will only require a simple patch to debian/copyright, and can get to it in a couple of days. Indeed, I forgot about those new files. We also added src/OSD/gettime_osx.h (BSD3), that should be all. I updated debian/copyright, can you please check and upload? Thanks. Wow, you did a complete update of debian/copyright, thanks! I'm sorry I was so lame and didn't get to it until now. I switched UNRELEASED to unstable and am building now, should be able to upload tonight (and will push the change and new tag back to alioth when it's done). Okay, just uploaded, and tagged and pushed back to alioth. Thanks again for your work on getting this package into shape, and hopefully into Debian this time! -Adam -- GPG fingerprint: D54D 1AEE B11C CE9B A02B C5DD 526F 01E8 564E E4B6 Engineering consulting with open source tools http://www.opennovation.com/ signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part
Bug#644943: Please switch source package to OCE
On 2011/11/21 D. Barbier wrote: On 2011/11/21 Adam C Powell IV: Hi Denis, On Thu, 2011-11-17 at 07:49 +0100, D. Barbier wrote: Thanks Adam for your upload. You're welcome, sorry it took so long. There's a problem with the package copyright, see the attached. I think this will only require a simple patch to debian/copyright, and can get to it in a couple of days. Indeed, I forgot about those new files. We also added src/OSD/gettime_osx.h (BSD3), that should be all. Hello Adam, I updated debian/copyright, can you please check and upload? Thanks. Denis -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-bugs-dist-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Bug#644943: Please switch source package to OCE
Hi Denis, On Thu, 2011-11-17 at 07:49 +0100, D. Barbier wrote: Thanks Adam for your upload. You're welcome, sorry it took so long. There's a problem with the package copyright, see the attached. I think this will only require a simple patch to debian/copyright, and can get to it in a couple of days. After it enters unstable, I will take care of providing patches for packages Build-Depending on opencascade; this may not be necessary, our OCE team already sent patches to various upstreams. Sounds good. I was already planning to patch a couple of my packages: netgen, elmerfem, freecad. -Adam -- GPG fingerprint: D54D 1AEE B11C CE9B A02B C5DD 526F 01E8 564E E4B6 Engineering consulting with open source tools http://www.opennovation.com/ ---BeginMessage--- Hi, files under test/gtest-1.6.0 are copyright Google, and licensed under BSD3, please mention that in copyright file. Cheers, Luca === Please feel free to respond to this email if you don't understand why your files were rejected, or if you upload new files which address our concerns. ---End Message--- signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part
Bug#644943: Please switch source package to OCE
On 2011/11/21 Adam C Powell IV hazel...@debian.org: Hi Denis, On Thu, 2011-11-17 at 07:49 +0100, D. Barbier wrote: Thanks Adam for your upload. You're welcome, sorry it took so long. There's a problem with the package copyright, see the attached. I think this will only require a simple patch to debian/copyright, and can get to it in a couple of days. Indeed, I forgot about those new files. We also added src/OSD/gettime_osx.h (BSD3), that should be all. Denis -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-bugs-dist-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Bug#644943: Please switch source package to OCE
Thanks Adam for your upload. After it enters unstable, I will take care of providing patches for packages Build-Depending on opencascade; this may not be necessary, our OCE team already sent patches to various upstreams. Denis -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-bugs-dist-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Bug#644943: Please switch source package to OCE
On Sun, 2011-11-13 at 20:19 +0100, D. Barbier wrote: On 2011/11/13 Adam C Powell IV wrote: [...] But can't seem to be able to push my one change: $ git push --all origin Enter passphrase for key '/home/hazelsct/.ssh/id_rsa': Counting objects: 7, done. Delta compression using up to 2 threads. Compressing objects: 100% (4/4), done. Writing objects: 100% (4/4), 428 bytes, done. Total 4 (delta 3), reused 0 (delta 0) error: unable to create temporary sha1 filename ./objects/ea: Read-only file system fatal: failed to write object error: unpack failed: unpack-objects abnormal exit To git+ssh://anonscm.debian.org/git/debian-science/packages/oce.git ! [remote rejected] debian - debian (n/a (unpacker error)) error: failed to push some refs to 'git+ssh://anonscm.debian.org/git/debian-science/packages/oce.git' I do not remember about Alioth setup, but http://anonscm.debian.org/gitweb/?p=debian-science/packages/oce.git;a=summary tells to use git+ssh://git.debian.org/git/debian-science/packages/oce.git and indeed I have ssh://barbier-gu...@git.debian.org/git/debian-science/packages/oce.git in my .git/config and this works. Thanks Denis and Julien. I made the change to .git/config and it seems to have worked. -Adam -- GPG fingerprint: D54D 1AEE B11C CE9B A02B C5DD 526F 01E8 564E E4B6 Engineering consulting with open source tools http://www.opennovation.com/ signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part
Bug#644943: Please switch source package to OCE
On Sun, Nov 13, 2011 at 12:36:43 -0500, Adam C Powell IV wrote: But can't seem to be able to push my one change: $ git push --all origin Enter passphrase for key '/home/hazelsct/.ssh/id_rsa': Counting objects: 7, done. Delta compression using up to 2 threads. Compressing objects: 100% (4/4), done. Writing objects: 100% (4/4), 428 bytes, done. Total 4 (delta 3), reused 0 (delta 0) error: unable to create temporary sha1 filename ./objects/ea: Read-only file system fatal: failed to write object error: unpack failed: unpack-objects abnormal exit To git+ssh://anonscm.debian.org/git/debian-science/packages/oce.git ! [remote rejected] debian - debian (n/a (unpacker error)) error: failed to push some refs to 'git+ssh://anonscm.debian.org/git/debian-science/packages/oce.git' --tags gives the same error. anonscm.debian.org (aka wagner) has a read-only NFS mount of the repos. You need to use git.debian.org (aka vasks) for write access. Cheers, Julien -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-bugs-dist-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Bug#644943: Please switch source package to OCE
On Sat, 2011-11-12 at 01:40 +0100, D. Barbier wrote: On 2011/11/11 Adam C Powell IV wrote: On Fri, 2011-11-11 at 07:51 -0500, Adam C Powell IV wrote: On Thu, 2011-11-10 at 23:57 +0100, D. Barbier wrote: On 2011/11/5 D. Barbier wrote: [...] Hello again, Current master looks good to me, it can IMO be uploaded. There is a pristine-tar branch, one can run pristine-tar checkout ../oce_0.7.0.orig.tar.gz to generate upstream tarball. ping? Sorry, busy week at work. Started to get to it yesterday, should be able to report back to you later today. Hi Denis, I'm having trouble downloading the tarball from upstream, I get an error /tmp/mphB79b0.bin.part could not be saved, because the source file could not be read. Try again later, or contact the server administrator. Hi Adam, You do not have to download upstream tarball; as said above you can run pristine-tar checkout ../oce_0.7.0.orig.tar.gz It is strictly identical to tpaviot-oce-OCE-0.7.0-0-ga384024.tar.gz I know, I used pristine-tar to generate .orig.tar.gz for my build. But as a formality, when sponsoring or otherwise uploading packages, I like to verify that it's the same as what comes from upstream, which is still not working. Thanks, Adam -- GPG fingerprint: D54D 1AEE B11C CE9B A02B C5DD 526F 01E8 564E E4B6 Engineering consulting with open source tools http://www.opennovation.com/ signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part
Bug#644943: Please switch source package to OCE
On 2011/11/13 Adam C Powell IV hazel...@debian.org: [...] I know, I used pristine-tar to generate .orig.tar.gz for my build. But as a formality, when sponsoring or otherwise uploading packages, I like to verify that it's the same as what comes from upstream, which is still not working. Okay, I do not know what is wrong, it works for me: at https://github.com/tpaviot/oce/tags when mouse is over 0.7.0, there is a tar.gz link which points to https://github.com/tpaviot/oce/tarball/OCE-0.7.0 My browser can download it (it saves it under the name tpaviot-oce-OCE-0.7.0-0-ga384024.tar.gz), or $ wget https://github.com/tpaviot/oce/tarball/OCE-0.7.0 --2011-11-13 17:47:34-- https://github.com/tpaviot/oce/tarball/OCE-0.7.0 Resolving github.com (github.com)... 207.97.227.239 Connecting to github.com (github.com)|207.97.227.239|:443... connected. HTTP request sent, awaiting response... 302 Found Location: https://nodeload.github.com/tpaviot/oce/tarball/OCE-0.7.0 [following] --2011-11-13 17:47:36-- https://nodeload.github.com/tpaviot/oce/tarball/OCE-0.7.0 Resolving nodeload.github.com (nodeload.github.com)... 207.97.227.252 Connecting to nodeload.github.com (nodeload.github.com)|207.97.227.252|:443... connected. HTTP request sent, awaiting response... 200 OK Length: 22763046 (22M) [application/octet-stream] Saving to: `OCE-0.7.0' 2011-11-13 17:48:25 (460 KB/s) - `OCE-0.7.0' saved [22763046/22763046] Maybe your /tmp is full? Denis -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-bugs-dist-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Bug#644943: Please switch source package to OCE
On Sun, 2011-11-13 at 17:49 +0100, D. Barbier wrote: On 2011/11/13 Adam C Powell IV hazel...@debian.org: [...] I know, I used pristine-tar to generate .orig.tar.gz for my build. But as a formality, when sponsoring or otherwise uploading packages, I like to verify that it's the same as what comes from upstream, which is still not working. Okay, I do not know what is wrong, it works for me: at https://github.com/tpaviot/oce/tags when mouse is over 0.7.0, there is a tar.gz link which points to https://github.com/tpaviot/oce/tarball/OCE-0.7.0 My browser can download it (it saves it under the name tpaviot-oce-OCE-0.7.0-0-ga384024.tar.gz), or Yeah, saw the same link, clicked it (Firefox 3.6.24 Ubuntu Lucid), again same problem. $ wget https://github.com/tpaviot/oce/tarball/OCE-0.7.0 --2011-11-13 17:47:34-- https://github.com/tpaviot/oce/tarball/OCE-0.7.0 Resolving github.com (github.com)... 207.97.227.239 Connecting to github.com (github.com)|207.97.227.239|:443... connected. HTTP request sent, awaiting response... 302 Found Location: https://nodeload.github.com/tpaviot/oce/tarball/OCE-0.7.0 [following] --2011-11-13 17:47:36-- https://nodeload.github.com/tpaviot/oce/tarball/OCE-0.7.0 Resolving nodeload.github.com (nodeload.github.com)... 207.97.227.252 Connecting to nodeload.github.com (nodeload.github.com)|207.97.227.252|:443... connected. HTTP request sent, awaiting response... 200 OK Length: 22763046 (22M) [application/octet-stream] Saving to: `OCE-0.7.0' 2011-11-13 17:48:25 (460 KB/s) - `OCE-0.7.0' saved [22763046/22763046] D'oh! Why didn't I think of wget? Just downloaded it and compared, no difference from the pristine-tar file. So I just uploaded it! But can't seem to be able to push my one change: $ git push --all origin Enter passphrase for key '/home/hazelsct/.ssh/id_rsa': Counting objects: 7, done. Delta compression using up to 2 threads. Compressing objects: 100% (4/4), done. Writing objects: 100% (4/4), 428 bytes, done. Total 4 (delta 3), reused 0 (delta 0) error: unable to create temporary sha1 filename ./objects/ea: Read-only file system fatal: failed to write object error: unpack failed: unpack-objects abnormal exit To git+ssh://anonscm.debian.org/git/debian-science/packages/oce.git ! [remote rejected] debian - debian (n/a (unpacker error)) error: failed to push some refs to 'git+ssh://anonscm.debian.org/git/debian-science/packages/oce.git' --tags gives the same error. Maybe your /tmp is full? Nope, 454 MiB available for a 22 MiB file. Still a mystery... Thanks! -Adam -- GPG fingerprint: D54D 1AEE B11C CE9B A02B C5DD 526F 01E8 564E E4B6 Engineering consulting with open source tools http://www.opennovation.com/ signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part
Bug#644943: Please switch source package to OCE
On 2011/11/13 Adam C Powell IV wrote: [...] But can't seem to be able to push my one change: $ git push --all origin Enter passphrase for key '/home/hazelsct/.ssh/id_rsa': Counting objects: 7, done. Delta compression using up to 2 threads. Compressing objects: 100% (4/4), done. Writing objects: 100% (4/4), 428 bytes, done. Total 4 (delta 3), reused 0 (delta 0) error: unable to create temporary sha1 filename ./objects/ea: Read-only file system fatal: failed to write object error: unpack failed: unpack-objects abnormal exit To git+ssh://anonscm.debian.org/git/debian-science/packages/oce.git ! [remote rejected] debian - debian (n/a (unpacker error)) error: failed to push some refs to 'git+ssh://anonscm.debian.org/git/debian-science/packages/oce.git' I do not remember about Alioth setup, but http://anonscm.debian.org/gitweb/?p=debian-science/packages/oce.git;a=summary tells to use git+ssh://git.debian.org/git/debian-science/packages/oce.git and indeed I have ssh://barbier-gu...@git.debian.org/git/debian-science/packages/oce.git in my .git/config and this works. Denis -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-bugs-dist-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Bug#644943: Please switch source package to OCE
On Thu, 2011-11-10 at 23:57 +0100, D. Barbier wrote: On 2011/11/5 D. Barbier wrote: [...] Hello again, Current master looks good to me, it can IMO be uploaded. There is a pristine-tar branch, one can run pristine-tar checkout ../oce_0.7.0.orig.tar.gz to generate upstream tarball. ping? Sorry, busy week at work. Started to get to it yesterday, should be able to report back to you later today. -Adam -- GPG fingerprint: D54D 1AEE B11C CE9B A02B C5DD 526F 01E8 564E E4B6 Engineering consulting with open source tools http://www.opennovation.com/ signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part
Bug#644943: Please switch source package to OCE
On Fri, 2011-11-11 at 07:51 -0500, Adam C Powell IV wrote: On Thu, 2011-11-10 at 23:57 +0100, D. Barbier wrote: On 2011/11/5 D. Barbier wrote: [...] Hello again, Current master looks good to me, it can IMO be uploaded. There is a pristine-tar branch, one can run pristine-tar checkout ../oce_0.7.0.orig.tar.gz to generate upstream tarball. ping? Sorry, busy week at work. Started to get to it yesterday, should be able to report back to you later today. Hi Denis, I'm having trouble downloading the tarball from upstream, I get an error /tmp/mphB79b0.bin.part could not be saved, because the source file could not be read. Try again later, or contact the server administrator. When I get that, I'll finish verifying the source package. In the meantime, I've diffed the debian directories and understand and concur with all of your changes. The package is building, and if all goes well, I'll upload after verifying the source. Thanks for all of your hard work! -Adam -- GPG fingerprint: D54D 1AEE B11C CE9B A02B C5DD 526F 01E8 564E E4B6 Engineering consulting with open source tools http://www.opennovation.com/ signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part
Bug#644943: Please switch source package to OCE
On 2011/11/11 Adam C Powell IV wrote: On Fri, 2011-11-11 at 07:51 -0500, Adam C Powell IV wrote: On Thu, 2011-11-10 at 23:57 +0100, D. Barbier wrote: On 2011/11/5 D. Barbier wrote: [...] Hello again, Current master looks good to me, it can IMO be uploaded. There is a pristine-tar branch, one can run pristine-tar checkout ../oce_0.7.0.orig.tar.gz to generate upstream tarball. ping? Sorry, busy week at work. Started to get to it yesterday, should be able to report back to you later today. Hi Denis, I'm having trouble downloading the tarball from upstream, I get an error /tmp/mphB79b0.bin.part could not be saved, because the source file could not be read. Try again later, or contact the server administrator. Hi Adam, You do not have to download upstream tarball; as said above you can run pristine-tar checkout ../oce_0.7.0.orig.tar.gz It is strictly identical to tpaviot-oce-OCE-0.7.0-0-ga384024.tar.gz When I get that, I'll finish verifying the source package. Great, thanks a lot! Denis -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-bugs-dist-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Bug#644943: Please switch source package to OCE
On 2011/11/5 D. Barbier wrote: [...] Hello again, Current master looks good to me, it can IMO be uploaded. There is a pristine-tar branch, one can run pristine-tar checkout ../oce_0.7.0.orig.tar.gz to generate upstream tarball. ping? Denis -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-bugs-dist-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Bug#644943: Please switch source package to OCE
On 2011/11/5 D. Barbier wrote: On 2011/11/4 Adam C Powell IV wrote: [...] I went ahead and did this: git://git.debian.org/git/debian-science/packages/oce.git BTW please do not use the Downloads direct link, this will create a tar.gz based on current master, which is different from latest release. Instead, use Tags to download 0.7.0.tar.gz: https://github.com/tpaviot/oce/tarball/OCE-0.7.0 Unless I am mistaken, it can be renamed into .orig.tar.gz, all non-DFSG stuff has been dropped. Great, I just left it empty for now, feel free to push stuff into it. It is now populated. I did not test it yet, but it should be almost usable. Hello again, Current master looks good to me, it can IMO be uploaded. There is a pristine-tar branch, one can run pristine-tar checkout ../oce_0.7.0.orig.tar.gz to generate upstream tarball. Denis -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-bugs-dist-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Bug#644943: Please switch source package to OCE
On Wed, 2011-11-02 at 16:31 +0100, D. Barbier wrote: On 2011/11/2 Adam C Powell IV wrote: On Wed, 2011-11-02 at 14:58 +0100, D. Barbier wrote: On 2011/11/1 D. Barbier wrote: On 2011/11/1 Adam C Powell IV wrote: [...] That's a good question. I could go either way: 1. tart a brand new repository, since it's a new package with new names -- but then start with a new changelog; or 2. Use the oce tarball as a new upstream on a renamed or cloned repository, or a branch, to more clearly show the changes between OCC and OCE. I think #1 makes more sense, particularly because it's perfectly easy for someone to diff -ur the two trees and see the changes, and we aren't trying to track patch-by-patch changes -- that's OCE upstream's job. We can leave opencascade.git in place, and start a new oce.git in the same place. Great, I also prefer #1. Can you please request its creation? (I can also do it if you prefer) Are there some guidelines about the preferred git workflow when upstream has a git repository? Hi again, I just found http://debian-science.alioth.debian.org/debian-science-policy.html http://lists.debian.org/debian-science/2008/05/msg00118.html Adam, can you please run the commands given in the 2nd link in order to create oce.git repository on Alioth? It's funny you mention that, I use that exact email from Teemu, which is flagged in my local client, every time I make a new Alioth repository. :-) I have a tight schedule today, but should be able to do this tomorrow. Great; you can create an empty repository if you have no time, I will push contents. I went ahead and did this: git://git.debian.org/git/debian-science/packages/oce.git BTW please do not use the Downloads direct link, this will create a tar.gz based on current master, which is different from latest release. Instead, use Tags to download 0.7.0.tar.gz: https://github.com/tpaviot/oce/tarball/OCE-0.7.0 Unless I am mistaken, it can be renamed into .orig.tar.gz, all non-DFSG stuff has been dropped. Great, I just left it empty for now, feel free to push stuff into it. -Adam -- GPG fingerprint: D54D 1AEE B11C CE9B A02B C5DD 526F 01E8 564E E4B6 Engineering consulting with open source tools http://www.opennovation.com/ signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part
Bug#644943: Please switch source package to OCE
On 2011/11/4 Adam C Powell IV wrote: [...] I went ahead and did this: git://git.debian.org/git/debian-science/packages/oce.git BTW please do not use the Downloads direct link, this will create a tar.gz based on current master, which is different from latest release. Instead, use Tags to download 0.7.0.tar.gz: https://github.com/tpaviot/oce/tarball/OCE-0.7.0 Unless I am mistaken, it can be renamed into .orig.tar.gz, all non-DFSG stuff has been dropped. Great, I just left it empty for now, feel free to push stuff into it. It is now populated. I did not test it yet, but it should be almost usable. Denis -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-bugs-dist-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Bug#644943: Please switch source package to OCE
On 2011/11/1 D. Barbier wrote: On 2011/11/1 Adam C Powell IV wrote: [...] That's a good question. I could go either way: 1. tart a brand new repository, since it's a new package with new names -- but then start with a new changelog; or 2. Use the oce tarball as a new upstream on a renamed or cloned repository, or a branch, to more clearly show the changes between OCC and OCE. I think #1 makes more sense, particularly because it's perfectly easy for someone to diff -ur the two trees and see the changes, and we aren't trying to track patch-by-patch changes -- that's OCE upstream's job. We can leave opencascade.git in place, and start a new oce.git in the same place. Great, I also prefer #1. Can you please request its creation? (I can also do it if you prefer) Are there some guidelines about the preferred git workflow when upstream has a git repository? Hi again, I just found http://debian-science.alioth.debian.org/debian-science-policy.html http://lists.debian.org/debian-science/2008/05/msg00118.html Adam, can you please run the commands given in the 2nd link in order to create oce.git repository on Alioth? Denis -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-bugs-dist-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Bug#644943: Please switch source package to OCE
Hello Denis, On Tue, 2011-11-01 at 18:54 +0100, D. Barbier wrote: On 2011/11/1 Adam C Powell IV wrote: [...] Hello, I just pushed a db/debian branch into upstream repository https://github.com/tpaviot/oce/tree/db/debian It will not be merged into our trunk, I pushed it there since I did not know where to publish it. It has been minimally tested, but needs more polishing. Great! I like that you've continued with the old OCC changelog. But I think it makes sense to do development of the package on the official Debian git server, to facilitate team management. In general when upstream creates a debian/ directory, it confuses things because there can be multiple Debian packages floating around. I fully agree. This branch will be deleted as soon as we can decide of its final location. So, how do we proceed now? Do we change package names, as in this branch? If yes, do we switch to a new repository? That's a good question. I could go either way: 1. tart a brand new repository, since it's a new package with new names -- but then start with a new changelog; or 2. Use the oce tarball as a new upstream on a renamed or cloned repository, or a branch, to more clearly show the changes between OCC and OCE. I think #1 makes more sense, particularly because it's perfectly easy for someone to diff -ur the two trees and see the changes, and we aren't trying to track patch-by-patch changes -- that's OCE upstream's job. We can leave opencascade.git in place, and start a new oce.git in the same place. Great, I also prefer #1. Can you please request its creation? (I can also do it if you prefer) I can go ahead and make it, I assume based on tpaviot-oce-OCE-0.7.0-1-g35b4691.tar.gz which I'll call oce-0.7.0.orig.tar.gz ( https://github.com/tpaviot/oce/downloads clicked on Download as tar.gz). Are there some guidelines about the preferred git workflow when upstream has a git repository? I don't believe so, as far as I know we just use the tarballs. Also, Denis, I think Conflicts is better than Breaks because apt will be sure to remove a Conflicts package before trying to install the new package; Okay. and it would be good to indicate Provides as well to smooth the transition. This is IMO a bad idea because OCE is based on Opencascade 6.5.1, and as you know, OCCT releases are not compatible. When OCE enters unstable, we file important (future FTBFS) bugs against OCC's rdeps. Then when OCE enters testing, ask the ftp-masters to remove OCC from unstable and testing and turn the unclosed important bugs to serious ones. Sounds good? Yes, thanks. Great. I'll get started in the next couple of days. -Adam -- GPG fingerprint: D54D 1AEE B11C CE9B A02B C5DD 526F 01E8 564E E4B6 Engineering consulting with open source tools http://www.opennovation.com/ signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part
Bug#644943: Please switch source package to OCE
On Wed, 2011-11-02 at 14:58 +0100, D. Barbier wrote: On 2011/11/1 D. Barbier wrote: On 2011/11/1 Adam C Powell IV wrote: [...] That's a good question. I could go either way: 1. tart a brand new repository, since it's a new package with new names -- but then start with a new changelog; or 2. Use the oce tarball as a new upstream on a renamed or cloned repository, or a branch, to more clearly show the changes between OCC and OCE. I think #1 makes more sense, particularly because it's perfectly easy for someone to diff -ur the two trees and see the changes, and we aren't trying to track patch-by-patch changes -- that's OCE upstream's job. We can leave opencascade.git in place, and start a new oce.git in the same place. Great, I also prefer #1. Can you please request its creation? (I can also do it if you prefer) Are there some guidelines about the preferred git workflow when upstream has a git repository? Hi again, I just found http://debian-science.alioth.debian.org/debian-science-policy.html http://lists.debian.org/debian-science/2008/05/msg00118.html Adam, can you please run the commands given in the 2nd link in order to create oce.git repository on Alioth? It's funny you mention that, I use that exact email from Teemu, which is flagged in my local client, every time I make a new Alioth repository. :-) I have a tight schedule today, but should be able to do this tomorrow. -Adam -- GPG fingerprint: D54D 1AEE B11C CE9B A02B C5DD 526F 01E8 564E E4B6 Engineering consulting with open source tools http://www.opennovation.com/ signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part
Bug#644943: Please switch source package to OCE
On 2011/11/2 Adam C Powell IV wrote: On Wed, 2011-11-02 at 14:58 +0100, D. Barbier wrote: On 2011/11/1 D. Barbier wrote: On 2011/11/1 Adam C Powell IV wrote: [...] That's a good question. I could go either way: 1. tart a brand new repository, since it's a new package with new names -- but then start with a new changelog; or 2. Use the oce tarball as a new upstream on a renamed or cloned repository, or a branch, to more clearly show the changes between OCC and OCE. I think #1 makes more sense, particularly because it's perfectly easy for someone to diff -ur the two trees and see the changes, and we aren't trying to track patch-by-patch changes -- that's OCE upstream's job. We can leave opencascade.git in place, and start a new oce.git in the same place. Great, I also prefer #1. Can you please request its creation? (I can also do it if you prefer) Are there some guidelines about the preferred git workflow when upstream has a git repository? Hi again, I just found http://debian-science.alioth.debian.org/debian-science-policy.html http://lists.debian.org/debian-science/2008/05/msg00118.html Adam, can you please run the commands given in the 2nd link in order to create oce.git repository on Alioth? It's funny you mention that, I use that exact email from Teemu, which is flagged in my local client, every time I make a new Alioth repository. :-) I have a tight schedule today, but should be able to do this tomorrow. Great; you can create an empty repository if you have no time, I will push contents. BTW please do not use the Downloads direct link, this will create a tar.gz based on current master, which is different from latest release. Instead, use Tags to download 0.7.0.tar.gz: https://github.com/tpaviot/oce/tarball/OCE-0.7.0 Unless I am mistaken, it can be renamed into .orig.tar.gz, all non-DFSG stuff has been dropped. Denis -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-bugs-dist-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Bug#644943: Please switch source package to OCE
Hello Denis et al., Apologies for the delay and for generally being out-of-pocket recently. On Thu, 2011-10-27 at 09:56 +0200, D. Barbier wrote: On 2011/10/13 Sylvestre Ledru wrote: Le jeudi 13 octobre 2011 à 10:08 +0200, D. Barbier a écrit : On 2011/10/11 Adam C Powell IV wrote: Dear Denis, Denis (and others on the CC list), what do you think? Can we keep the same source package name, unless/until OCE diverges away from the main OCCT? I have mixed feelings about package names. OCE developers decided to not use OCC or OpenCascade names in order to make it clear that this product is not endorsed by OpenCascade SAS. On the other hand, it is of course much more convenient to keep the same names. My preference goes to s/opencascade/oce/ in source and binary package names though. Idem. Different teams, different projects = different names... Hello, I just pushed a db/debian branch into upstream repository https://github.com/tpaviot/oce/tree/db/debian It will not be merged into our trunk, I pushed it there since I did not know where to publish it. It has been minimally tested, but needs more polishing. Great! I like that you've continued with the old OCC changelog. But I think it makes sense to do development of the package on the official Debian git server, to facilitate team management. In general when upstream creates a debian/ directory, it confuses things because there can be multiple Debian packages floating around. So, how do we proceed now? Do we change package names, as in this branch? If yes, do we switch to a new repository? That's a good question. I could go either way: 1. tart a brand new repository, since it's a new package with new names -- but then start with a new changelog; or 2. Use the oce tarball as a new upstream on a renamed or cloned repository, or a branch, to more clearly show the changes between OCC and OCE. I think #1 makes more sense, particularly because it's perfectly easy for someone to diff -ur the two trees and see the changes, and we aren't trying to track patch-by-patch changes -- that's OCE upstream's job. We can leave opencascade.git in place, and start a new oce.git in the same place. Also, Denis, I think Conflicts is better than Breaks because apt will be sure to remove a Conflicts package before trying to install the new package; and it would be good to indicate Provides as well to smooth the transition. When OCE enters unstable, we file important (future FTBFS) bugs against OCC's rdeps. Then when OCE enters testing, ask the ftp-masters to remove OCC from unstable and testing and turn the unclosed important bugs to serious ones. Sounds good? -Adam -- GPG fingerprint: D54D 1AEE B11C CE9B A02B C5DD 526F 01E8 564E E4B6 Engineering consulting with open source tools http://www.opennovation.com/ signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part
Bug#644943: Please switch source package to OCE
On 2011/11/1 Adam C Powell IV wrote: [...] Hello, I just pushed a db/debian branch into upstream repository https://github.com/tpaviot/oce/tree/db/debian It will not be merged into our trunk, I pushed it there since I did not know where to publish it. It has been minimally tested, but needs more polishing. Great! I like that you've continued with the old OCC changelog. But I think it makes sense to do development of the package on the official Debian git server, to facilitate team management. In general when upstream creates a debian/ directory, it confuses things because there can be multiple Debian packages floating around. I fully agree. This branch will be deleted as soon as we can decide of its final location. So, how do we proceed now? Do we change package names, as in this branch? If yes, do we switch to a new repository? That's a good question. I could go either way: 1. tart a brand new repository, since it's a new package with new names -- but then start with a new changelog; or 2. Use the oce tarball as a new upstream on a renamed or cloned repository, or a branch, to more clearly show the changes between OCC and OCE. I think #1 makes more sense, particularly because it's perfectly easy for someone to diff -ur the two trees and see the changes, and we aren't trying to track patch-by-patch changes -- that's OCE upstream's job. We can leave opencascade.git in place, and start a new oce.git in the same place. Great, I also prefer #1. Can you please request its creation? (I can also do it if you prefer) Are there some guidelines about the preferred git workflow when upstream has a git repository? Also, Denis, I think Conflicts is better than Breaks because apt will be sure to remove a Conflicts package before trying to install the new package; Okay. and it would be good to indicate Provides as well to smooth the transition. This is IMO a bad idea because OCE is based on Opencascade 6.5.1, and as you know, OCCT releases are not compatible. When OCE enters unstable, we file important (future FTBFS) bugs against OCC's rdeps. Then when OCE enters testing, ask the ftp-masters to remove OCC from unstable and testing and turn the unclosed important bugs to serious ones. Sounds good? Yes, thanks. Denis -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-bugs-dist-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Bug#644943: Please switch source package to OCE
On 2011/10/13 Sylvestre Ledru wrote: Le jeudi 13 octobre 2011 à 10:08 +0200, D. Barbier a écrit : On 2011/10/11 Adam C Powell IV wrote: Dear Denis, Denis (and others on the CC list), what do you think? Can we keep the same source package name, unless/until OCE diverges away from the main OCCT? I have mixed feelings about package names. OCE developers decided to not use OCC or OpenCascade names in order to make it clear that this product is not endorsed by OpenCascade SAS. On the other hand, it is of course much more convenient to keep the same names. My preference goes to s/opencascade/oce/ in source and binary package names though. Idem. Different teams, different projects = different names... Hello, I just pushed a db/debian branch into upstream repository https://github.com/tpaviot/oce/tree/db/debian It will not be merged into our trunk, I pushed it there since I did not know where to publish it. It has been minimally tested, but needs more polishing. So, how do we proceed now? Do we change package names, as in this branch? If yes, do we switch to a new repository? Denis -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-bugs-dist-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Bug#644943: Please switch source package to OCE
On 2011/10/11 Adam C Powell IV wrote: Dear Denis, On Tue, 2011-10-11 at 01:20 +0200, D. Barbier wrote: Package: src:opencascade Version: 6.5.0.dfsg-2 Severity: wishlist Hello Adam, As you know, several community members have launched a fork called OpenCascade Community Edition (OCE) https://github.com/tpaviot/oce I am a member of this project, one of our goals had been to improve portability and support as many architectures as possible, and IIRC all Debian patches have been applied. IMO it will be much easier to maintain OCE as a downstream. To be honest I am not interested in helping with OCC maintenance since all my projects have switched to OCE, but of course this is your call, hence this bugreport. I agree, and when we discussed this on debian-science the consensus seemed to be that we should go ahead and make this change. That was of course five months ago, my apologies for not taking action since then. No problem; in the mean time I worked on OCE to improve its integration with other software. And now that it is in a pretty good shape IMHO, I would like to push it. The latest release (0.6.0) is source compatible with OCCT 6.5.1, packages which build depends on opencascade should compile just fine with OCE, the only visible change is that we replaced Autotools by CMake. Okay, thanks. I think the best way to do this is for me to upgrade the upstream branch of the git repository to OCCT 6.5.1, then switch from that to OCE 0.6.0 using a version epoch. Given the modest goals of OCE (i.e. no new features or major divergence from OCCT), we certainly don't need to change the binary package names. I don't think we need to even chance the source package name, but other opinions may vary. Denis (and others on the CC list), what do you think? Can we keep the same source package name, unless/until OCE diverges away from the main OCCT? I have mixed feelings about package names. OCE developers decided to not use OCC or OpenCascade names in order to make it clear that this product is not endorsed by OpenCascade SAS. On the other hand, it is of course much more convenient to keep the same names. My preference goes to s/opencascade/oce/ in source and binary package names though. Denis -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-bugs-dist-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Bug#644943: Please switch source package to OCE
Le jeudi 13 octobre 2011 à 10:08 +0200, D. Barbier a écrit : On 2011/10/11 Adam C Powell IV wrote: Dear Denis, Denis (and others on the CC list), what do you think? Can we keep the same source package name, unless/until OCE diverges away from the main OCCT? I have mixed feelings about package names. OCE developers decided to not use OCC or OpenCascade names in order to make it clear that this product is not endorsed by OpenCascade SAS. On the other hand, it is of course much more convenient to keep the same names. My preference goes to s/opencascade/oce/ in source and binary package names though. Idem. Different teams, different projects = different names... Sylvestre -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-bugs-dist-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Bug#644943: Please switch source package to OCE
Dear Denis, On Tue, 2011-10-11 at 01:20 +0200, D. Barbier wrote: Package: src:opencascade Version: 6.5.0.dfsg-2 Severity: wishlist Hello Adam, As you know, several community members have launched a fork called OpenCascade Community Edition (OCE) https://github.com/tpaviot/oce I am a member of this project, one of our goals had been to improve portability and support as many architectures as possible, and IIRC all Debian patches have been applied. IMO it will be much easier to maintain OCE as a downstream. To be honest I am not interested in helping with OCC maintenance since all my projects have switched to OCE, but of course this is your call, hence this bugreport. I agree, and when we discussed this on debian-science the consensus seemed to be that we should go ahead and make this change. That was of course five months ago, my apologies for not taking action since then. The latest release (0.6.0) is source compatible with OCCT 6.5.1, packages which build depends on opencascade should compile just fine with OCE, the only visible change is that we replaced Autotools by CMake. Okay, thanks. I think the best way to do this is for me to upgrade the upstream branch of the git repository to OCCT 6.5.1, then switch from that to OCE 0.6.0 using a version epoch. Given the modest goals of OCE (i.e. no new features or major divergence from OCCT), we certainly don't need to change the binary package names. I don't think we need to even chance the source package name, but other opinions may vary. Denis (and others on the CC list), what do you think? Can we keep the same source package name, unless/until OCE diverges away from the main OCCT? -Adam -- GPG fingerprint: D54D 1AEE B11C CE9B A02B C5DD 526F 01E8 564E E4B6 Engineering consulting with open source tools http://www.opennovation.com/ signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part
Bug#644943: Please switch source package to OCE
Package: src:opencascade Version: 6.5.0.dfsg-2 Severity: wishlist Hello Adam, As you know, several community members have launched a fork called OpenCascade Community Edition (OCE) https://github.com/tpaviot/oce I am a member of this project, one of our goals had been to improve portability and support as many architectures as possible, and IIRC all Debian patches have been applied. IMO it will be much easier to maintain OCE as a downstream. To be honest I am not interested in helping with OCC maintenance since all my projects have switched to OCE, but of course this is your call, hence this bugreport. The latest release (0.6.0) is source compatible with OCCT 6.5.1, packages which build depends on opencascade should compile just fine with OCE, the only visible change is that we replaced Autotools by CMake. Denis -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-bugs-dist-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
