Bug#686679: RFS: asn1c/0.9.21+dfsg-1 [ITP] -- ASN.1 compiler for C
On Sep 18, 2012, at 00:39, Arno Toell wrote: > > thanks for your work. I've just sponsored your package. You may have > gotten a notification by dak. Note, that the package is NEW - meaning it > needs to be manually approved by a ftp-master. Please note this could > take a while given we're in a freeze. You can look at the NEW queue at [1]. > > You can contact me directly in future, for upcoming uploads, if you want. Hi, Arno, Thank you too for sponsoring the package. > Yes, I just sent out an advocation mail. Please request to join > collab-maint so that admins can approve your request. Once you're in, > please push your changes (and tag the version you provided last). Received an alioth account, thank you. Just pushed and tagged new version to the repository. Seems to work with svn-buildpackage. > > -- > mit freundlichen Grüßen, > Arno Töll, BSc. > GnuPG Key-ID: 0x9D80F36D > > Wavecon GmbH | Ludwigstrasse 2 | 90763 Fuerth > Web: wavecon.de | Mail + Jabber a...@wavecon.de > --- Best regards, Eugene Seliverstov -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-bugs-dist-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Bug#686679: RFS: asn1c/0.9.21+dfsg-1 [ITP] -- ASN.1 compiler for C
On Sep 13, 2012, at 01:42, Arno Toell wrote: > Your version is acceptable as it is larger than 0.9.21.dfsg-4. It might > be ugly a bit dangerous and misleading, but it is feasible in your case. > That said I realize this is not your fault, so let's deal with it. If > upstream ever releases a new version you may consider switching to a > better version scheme, though. Hello, Arno, Sure I'll think about it with the next upstream version. > > Having that said, you still didn't include deltas from previous versions > in Debian. Frankly, the difference is minor and mostly the changelog - > but for consistency you should include it to your package. > > I gave you a link to the latest version which ever appeared in Debian. > Please do a diff against your package and incorporate changes you aren't > including yet (e.g. the version history in debian/changelog) Sorry I missed that point last time. Added previous changelog entries. Uploaded the new package. > > I noticed you added VCS links - thanks. Please do also push your updates > there. As a new maintainer, this is your repository now. :) > As I understand I can't have write access until I'll receive permissions for the asn1c collab-maint SVN repository. According to [1] I just created an Alioth user theirix-guest. Could you please send an advocate e-mail for collab-maint asn1c repository? Thanks a lot. > > > > [1] http://wiki.debian.org/Alioth/PackagingProject > -- > Arno Töll > GnuPG Key-ID: 0x9D80F36D --- Best regards, Eugene Seliverstov -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-bugs-dist-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Bug#686679: RFS: asn1c/0.9.21+dfsg-1 [ITP] -- ASN.1 compiler for C
Hi, On 11.09.2012 16:48, Eugene Seliverstov wrote: > I prefered .dfsg variant for consistent versioning. Repackaging original > tarball > with removing PDF files leads to use of 'dfsg1' prefix so now full version is > '0.9.21.dfsg1-1'. Your version is acceptable as it is larger than 0.9.21.dfsg-4. It might be ugly a bit dangerous and misleading, but it is feasible in your case. That said I realize this is not your fault, so let's deal with it. If upstream ever releases a new version you may consider switching to a better version scheme, though. Having that said, you still didn't include deltas from previous versions in Debian. Frankly, the difference is minor and mostly the changelog - but for consistency you should include it to your package. I gave you a link to the latest version which ever appeared in Debian. Please do a diff against your package and incorporate changes you aren't including yet (e.g. the version history in debian/changelog) >> * There is a SVN repository for the packaging [2]. Please update that >> and add it to your control file [3] [..] > Added VCS lines, fixed debian/rules and added > both README.source and get-orig-source target. I noticed you added VCS links - thanks. Please do also push your updates there. As a new maintainer, this is your repository now. :) If you prefer something else than SVN (or some other location to Alioth), please follow instructions on the wiki regarding collab-maint repositories [1], and push a pointer to the new location on the old repository. If you decide to do so, please update the VCS links in the package as well. > It is correct. Upstream added pdf sources only in development branch. > For now I removed PDFs from a dfsg tarball. Thanks. [1] http://wiki.debian.org/Alioth/PackagingProject -- Arno Töll GnuPG Key-ID: 0x9D80F36D -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-bugs-dist-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Bug#686679: RFS: asn1c/0.9.21+dfsg-1 [ITP] -- ASN.1 compiler for C
On Sep 5, 2012, at 03:09, Arno Töll wrote: > tags 686679 + moreinfo > thanks > > Hi Eugene, > > this is a review of your package. Hello, Arno, Thank you a lot for your time and explantations! Please review my next upload at http://mentors.debian.net/debian/pool/main/a/asn1c/asn1c_0.9.21.dfsg1-1.dsc > > * Do not install Lintian overrides for manpage-has-errors-from-man. The > warning is legit, but of minor importance. Either fix it, or ignore it. > > * You are missing several uploads of asn1c which were in Debian at some > point after Squeeze's version. You can find the latest package in [1]. > Consequently your version number is too low. 0.9.21.dfsg-1 was in Debian > already in 2007 (uploaded 21 Jun 2007). Please use at very least > 0.9.21.dfsg-5. Moreover, please import the delta of changes since then > to your package. > I prefered .dfsg variant for consistent versioning. Repackaging original tarball with removing PDF files leads to use of 'dfsg1' prefix so now full version is '0.9.21.dfsg1-1'. > * There is a SVN repository for the packaging [2]. Please update that > and add it to your control file [3] > > * In debian/rules, please remove the boilerplate blind text. > > * At your choice, either document how to build a repacked tarball (you > need to remove the IETF files from the tarball as you probably know) in > debian/README.source [4] or make a get-orig-source [5] target (or both). > Added VCS lines, fixed debian/rules and added both README.source and get-orig-source target. > * I couldn't find the source for the PDF files you install from doc/ > (the preferred form for modification that is). Please include it in your > source package, or remove it while repacking the tarball. It is correct. Upstream added pdf sources only in development branch. For now I removed PDFs from a dfsg tarball. > > * Please add a DEP-3 header to your patches [6]. Also consider sending > it upstream, unless you did already. > > * debian/copyright wrongly claims, the package would be subject to the > BSD-2-clause license. Actually it is 3-clause. Actually it was my mistake. It was a 2-clause license (according to COPYING file). Corrected a mistake. > -- > with kind regards, > Arno Töll > IRC: daemonkeeper on Freenode/OFTC > GnuPG Key-ID: 0x9D80F36D > --- Best regards, Eugene Seliverstov -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-bugs-dist-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Bug#686679: RFS: asn1c/0.9.21+dfsg-1 [ITP] -- ASN.1 compiler for C
Hi Eugene, On 05.09.2012 14:45, Eugene Seliverstov wrote: > I have some questions about versioning scheme. > Package is based on latest 0.9.21.dfsg-4 and includes all of these changes. > But I reseted (maybe incorrectly) a numbering due to use '+dfsg' prefix > instead of '.dfsg'. > 1. Is it okay to use recommended '+dfsg' prefix? > According to comparison rules 0.9.21+dfsg-5 is lesser than a 0.9.21.dfsg-4 > and ever 0.9.21.dfsg-5. > Should I keep .dfsg prefix? Does it matter that a package upload is a > completely new and would not > conflict with already removed asn1c? > 2. In any case (.dfsg or +dfsg) '-5' debian version should be used, right? Yes, using +dfsg is acceptable. I haven't checked it, but I'm pretty sure that the +dfsg variant is more common. That said, keep in mind that using + or . is not only a stylistic question. It also makes a difference sometimes. $ dpkg --compare-versions 1.0 "<<" 1.0.dfsg+1 && echo true true $ dpkg --compare-versions 1.0 "<<" 1.0~dfsg+1 && echo true $ dpkg --compare-versions 1.0 "<<" 1.0+dfsg1 && echo true true $ dpkg --compare-versions 1.0 "<<" 1.0+dfsg1 && echo true true $ dpkg --compare-versions 1.0 "<<" 1.0~dfsg1 && echo true $ dpkg --compare-versions 1.0 "<<" 1.0.dfsg1 && echo true true $ dpkg --compare-versions 1.0.dfsg1 "<<" 1.0+dfsg1 && echo true $ dpkg --compare-versions 1.0+dfsg1 "<<" 1.0.dfsg1 && echo true true As for you, anything is acceptable which sorts higher than 0.9.21.dfsg-4 (which is in Debian Squeeze), but lower than 0.9.22 or whatever a hypotetical new upstream version would be. Details about Debian's version number interpretation can be found at [1]. Note, 0.9.21.dfsg-4 is higher than 0.9.21+dfsg-1, however. If you prefer a +dfsg notation, you could trick a bit, either by using epochs or fake version numbers using X.really.Y or something alike. Regarding your second question: It does not matter (much), as long as you keep the upstream version as is. Just make sure your choice sorts later than 0.9.21.dfsg-4. [1] http://www.debian.org/doc/debian-policy/ch-controlfields.html#s-f-Version -- mit freundlichen Grüßen, Arno Töll, BSc. GnuPG Key-ID: 0x9D80F36D Wavecon GmbH | Ludwigstrasse 2 | 90763 Fuerth Web: wavecon.de | Mail + Jabber a...@wavecon.de signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Bug#686679: RFS: asn1c/0.9.21+dfsg-1 [ITP] -- ASN.1 compiler for C
On Sep 5, 2012, at 03:09, Arno Töll wrote: > tags 686679 + moreinfo > thanks > > Hi Eugene, > > On 04.09.2012 18:23, Eugene Seliverstov wrote: >> A package asn1c was previously maintained by W. Martin Borgert >> >> but it was removed from testing and unstable distributions due to lack of >> adopters. >> Current package is based on original package and includes several new patches >> to conform with latest Debian Policy. > > > this is a review of your package. Hi, Arno, Thank you for the review! > > * Do not install Lintian overrides for manpage-has-errors-from-man. The > warning is legit, but of minor importance. Either fix it, or ignore it. > > * You are missing several uploads of asn1c which were in Debian at some > point after Squeeze's version. You can find the latest package in [1]. > Consequently your version number is too low. 0.9.21.dfsg-1 was in Debian > already in 2007 (uploaded 21 Jun 2007). Please use at very least > 0.9.21.dfsg-5. Moreover, please import the delta of changes since then > to your package. I have some questions about versioning scheme. Package is based on latest 0.9.21.dfsg-4 and includes all of these changes. But I reseted (maybe incorrectly) a numbering due to use '+dfsg' prefix instead of '.dfsg'. 1. Is it okay to use recommended '+dfsg' prefix? According to comparison rules 0.9.21+dfsg-5 is lesser than a 0.9.21.dfsg-4 and ever 0.9.21.dfsg-5. Should I keep .dfsg prefix? Does it matter that a package upload is a completely new and would not conflict with already removed asn1c? 2. In any case (.dfsg or +dfsg) '-5' debian version should be used, right? > > * There is a SVN repository for the packaging [2]. Please update that > and add it to your control file [3] > > * In debian/rules, please remove the boilerplate blind text. > > * At your choice, either document how to build a repacked tarball (you > need to remove the IETF files from the tarball as you probably know) in > debian/README.source [4] or make a get-orig-source [5] target (or both). > > * I couldn't find the source for the PDF files you install from doc/ > (the preferred form for modification that is). Please include it in your > source package, or remove it while repacking the tarball. > > * Please add a DEP-3 header to your patches [6]. Also consider sending > it upstream, unless you did already. > > * debian/copyright wrongly claims, the package would be subject to the > BSD-2-clause license. Actually it is 3-clause. > > > > [1] http://snapshot.debian.org/package/asn1c/0.9.21.dfsg-4/ > [2] http://anonscm.debian.org/viewvc/collab-maint/deb-maint/asn1c/ > [3] > http://www.debian.org/doc/manuals/developers-reference/best-pkging-practices.html#bpp-vcs > [4] http://www.debian.org/doc/debian-policy/ch-source.html#s-readmesource > [5] http://www.debian.org/doc/debian-policy/ch-source.html#s-debianrules > [6] http://dep.debian.net/deps/dep3/ > -- > with kind regards, > Arno Töll > IRC: daemonkeeper on Freenode/OFTC > GnuPG Key-ID: 0x9D80F36D > --- Best regards, Eugene Seliverstov -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-bugs-dist-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Bug#686679: RFS: asn1c/0.9.21+dfsg-1 [ITP] -- ASN.1 compiler for C
tags 686679 + moreinfo thanks Hi Eugene, On 04.09.2012 18:23, Eugene Seliverstov wrote: > A package asn1c was previously maintained by W. Martin Borgert > > but it was removed from testing and unstable distributions due to lack of > adopters. > Current package is based on original package and includes several new patches > to conform with latest Debian Policy. this is a review of your package. * Do not install Lintian overrides for manpage-has-errors-from-man. The warning is legit, but of minor importance. Either fix it, or ignore it. * You are missing several uploads of asn1c which were in Debian at some point after Squeeze's version. You can find the latest package in [1]. Consequently your version number is too low. 0.9.21.dfsg-1 was in Debian already in 2007 (uploaded 21 Jun 2007). Please use at very least 0.9.21.dfsg-5. Moreover, please import the delta of changes since then to your package. * There is a SVN repository for the packaging [2]. Please update that and add it to your control file [3] * In debian/rules, please remove the boilerplate blind text. * At your choice, either document how to build a repacked tarball (you need to remove the IETF files from the tarball as you probably know) in debian/README.source [4] or make a get-orig-source [5] target (or both). * I couldn't find the source for the PDF files you install from doc/ (the preferred form for modification that is). Please include it in your source package, or remove it while repacking the tarball. * Please add a DEP-3 header to your patches [6]. Also consider sending it upstream, unless you did already. * debian/copyright wrongly claims, the package would be subject to the BSD-2-clause license. Actually it is 3-clause. [1] http://snapshot.debian.org/package/asn1c/0.9.21.dfsg-4/ [2] http://anonscm.debian.org/viewvc/collab-maint/deb-maint/asn1c/ [3] http://www.debian.org/doc/manuals/developers-reference/best-pkging-practices.html#bpp-vcs [4] http://www.debian.org/doc/debian-policy/ch-source.html#s-readmesource [5] http://www.debian.org/doc/debian-policy/ch-source.html#s-debianrules [6] http://dep.debian.net/deps/dep3/ -- with kind regards, Arno Töll IRC: daemonkeeper on Freenode/OFTC GnuPG Key-ID: 0x9D80F36D signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Bug#686679: RFS: asn1c/0.9.21+dfsg-1 [ITP] -- ASN.1 compiler for C
Package: sponsorship-requests Severity: wishlist Dear mentors, I am looking for a sponsor for my package "asn1c" * Package name: asn1c Version : 0.9.21+dfsg-1 Upstream Author : Lev Walkin * URL : http://asn1c.sourceforge.net * License : BSD-2-Clause Section : devel It builds those binary packages: asn1c - ASN.1 compiler for C To access further information about this package, please visit the following URL: http://mentors.debian.net/package/asn1c Alternatively, one can download the package with dget using this command: dget -x http://mentors.debian.net/debian/pool/main/a/asn1c/asn1c_0.9.21+dfsg-1.dsc A package asn1c was previously maintained by W. Martin Borgert but it was removed from testing and unstable distributions due to lack of adopters. Current package is based on original package and includes several new patches to conform with latest Debian Policy. --- Best regards, Eugene Seliverstov -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-bugs-dist-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
