Bug#691224: notion: ion3-scripts hasn't been migrated to notion-script
On Wed, 24 Oct 2012 10:27:00 +0200 Philipp Hartwig p...@phhart.de wrote: OK. I got a package. The repo is at https://github.com/dkogan/notion-scripts That was quick, great. Right now a $ git-buildpackage fails for me with the message gbp:error: upstream is not a valid branch, and if I try to checkout the upstream branch, I get into 'detached HEAD' state with HEAD is now at b9bd818... updated README, verify_index.pl to refer to notion I set it up to take the upstream code from the branch upstream. When you checked out the code, you only checked out the master branch. Thus you didn't have a branch upstream, only origin/upstream. There are several ways to deal with this. The easiest is to check out the code with gbp-clone instead of git clone. As far as I can tell this does a normal clone and also checks out the upstream branch. It's a bit more common to take the upstream from a tag instead of a branch, which avoids this issue entirely. Since these contributed scripts aren't really a project on their own (rather a collection of many small projects), I don't want to tag stuff. As for the detached HEAD, I'm not 100% sure what's going on, but it's likely you're using git wrong somehow. I can help explain if you tell me exactly which commands gave you that. This is a plain git-buildpackage repository. Debian branch is master, while the upstream branch is upstream. I did make one patch to the upstream copy itself (updating the README and such), so please merge that in, if you can. Please don't make any changes outside of the debian folder, but rather create a debian patch for them. If the patch looks suitable for an inclusion upstream, this will be done and then the patch can be dropped on the next upstream import. Let's simply make that a policy please. :) Sure. This was me asking for a merge to upstream. I'll be more explicit. While I agree that some changes to the README and verify_index.pl are in order, your changes look suitable only for the Debian package. In the upstream version, the README is part of the contrib repository, so I don't think it should refer to the contrib repository through an external url. And also in verify_index.pl, upstream it should refer to the contrib directory, while in the Debian package it should refer to the notion-scripts directory. OK. That sounds fine. Do you think it makes sense to keep a reference to the old, dead repo in the README (the folk.ntnu... link)? Can you somehow revert these changes? I'll do something upstream and then you/we can create a debian patch. Sure. I'll rebase my patch out. - I left the Suggests field in debian/control as it was. More scripts have been added since the last package was up-to-date, so this list is probably incomplete now Actually I think we should drop all the current suggests, and only potentially suggest packages that would benefit the script collection as a whole (I can't think of any right now). This is how the irssi-scripts and vim-scripts packages handle it. Sounds good. - The web addresses in debian/control don't exist yet. If this package becomes hosted on Alioth next to notion itself, these will become correct Okay, I'm not sure what is necessary to get it hosted on Alioth, probably Arnout can help here. I'd like to see this hosted there, but it's up to somebody with the proper privileges. - LICENSE file says GPL3 unless otherwise stated, but some other places state public domain unless otherwise stated. This is a discrepancy that should be resolved. The GPL3 seems to be the wrong one between the two. Ugh, weird. The ion3-scripts package does not contain such a LICENSE file, so I don't even know where it comes from. We'll change this upstream once I've figured out what's going on there. This file was added in the very first commit in the git repo. This repo postdates ion3-scripts, hence no such file there. Juri Hamburg pushed this license to the repo on 2010/06/10. I'm not going to do anything with this right now. If somebody has strong opinions, tell me. Otherwise, I think this should be changed to public domain to match the previous releases. - Some of the scripts had an explicit copyright, but no explicit license. How are these to be treated? I'm calling these out as unspecified in the debian/copyright. Do these revert to public domain? Most of them are by Etan Reisner. I've asked him about it and will let you know about the response. You can find us in #notion on freenode btw. I see you updated this upstream (MIT license). I updated the debian/copyright accordingly. - The debian/copyright had some of its licenses stated incorrectly (mostly things like GPL vs LGPL, GPL2 vs GPL2+, etc). I corrected these. If anything more needs to happen, I'm bringing it up here. I thought I had been rather careful with this ... Anyway, two entries seem to be missing
Bug#691224: notion: ion3-scripts hasn't been migrated to notion-script
On Thu, Oct 25, 2012 at 12:18:51AM -0700, Dima Kogan wrote: That was quick, great. Right now a $ git-buildpackage fails for me with the message gbp:error: upstream is not a valid branch, and if I try to checkout the upstream branch, I get into 'detached HEAD' state with HEAD is now at b9bd818... updated README, verify_index.pl to refer to notion I set it up to take the upstream code from the branch upstream. When you checked out the code, you only checked out the master branch. Thus you didn't have a branch upstream, only origin/upstream. There are several ways to deal with this. The easiest is to check out the code with gbp-clone instead of git clone. As far as I can tell this does a normal clone and also checks out the upstream branch. It's a bit more common to take the upstream from a tag instead of a branch, which avoids this issue entirely. Since these contributed scripts aren't really a project on their own (rather a collection of many small projects), I don't want to tag stuff. I see. The origin - origin/upstream change doesn't really help, but with remotes/origin/upstream instead I can finally build the package. As for the detached HEAD, I'm not 100% sure what's going on, but it's likely you're using git wrong somehow. I can help explain if you tell me exactly which commands gave you that. Apparently that's normal when checking out out a remote branch, so please just forget about it. Sure. This was me asking for a merge to upstream. I'll be more explicit. I see, I just think it's cleaner if you don't apply the changes to the upstream branch of this repo directly. Do you think it makes sense to keep a reference to the old, dead repo in the README (the folk.ntnu... link)? No. I'll upload a new version of the README once I've figured out what to do with the LICENSE file. This file was added in the very first commit in the git repo. This repo postdates ion3-scripts, hence no such file there. Juri Hamburg pushed this license to the repo on 2010/06/10. I'm not going to do anything with this right now. If somebody has strong opinions, tell me. Otherwise, I think this should be changed to public domain to match the previous releases. I've asked the people who created the repository and have committed to it since if we can drop the LICENSE file or at least replace the GPL3 with a more permissive license. I'll let you know about the outcome. Might take a while though. Not on purpose. This was an oversight on my part. Added. Also found another missing one: heuristics.lua. There are now 3 files with unspecified licenses. What should be done with these? Not sure. I might mail the authors of statusbar_fname.lua and xkbion.lua, and drop heuristics.lua which is most likely completely outdated and not relevant anymore. The new debianization is now uploaded to that same repo. I'll hang out in #notion for a few hours (I'm in the USA), so you can talk to me there if you like. Okay, we've missed each other (I'm in Europe). :) Cheers, Philipp -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-bugs-dist-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Bug#691224: notion: ion3-scripts hasn't been migrated to notion-script
On Tue, 23 Oct 2012 09:16:31 +0200 Philipp Hartwig p...@phhart.de wrote: Hi and welcome to Notion, I'm moving my old ion3 install to notion. For the most part it's smooth, but I'm using a piece of the old ion3-scripts package, which doesn't yet have a notion counterpart. If this is simply a manpower issue, not a licensing one, I'm happy to do this. definitely not a licensing issue, we were just focused on getting Notion itself into Debian. If you could start preparing such a package, that would be great! You can find the source of the most recent version of ion3-scripts under [1] . This is probably a good place to start. The most recent version of the scripts is available through the contrib submodule of our main git repository[2]. See [3] for instructions and/or [4] for a web version. Note that the copyright file of the above ion3-scripts package is somewhat lacking. However the copyright file of the current Notion package also includes information on the scripts, see [5], so one should use this information instead. I have made one mistake that needs fixing though. Namely the second sentence of A list of files in the contrib directory with copyright holders other than Tuomo Valkonen follows. Unless otherwise specified the files are distributed unter the same license as the Notion package. is utterly wrong. Instead they are in the public domain. This will be fixed in the next version of the package. I'll be happy to also help out, so we can do this together if you want. Maybe GitHub or a similar site would be a good place. Cheers, Philipp [1] http://snapshot.debian.org/package/ion3-scripts/20070515.debian-1/ [2] git://notion.git.sourceforge.net/gitroot/notion/notion [3] http://sourceforge.net/apps/mediawiki/notion/index.php?title=Development [4] http://notion.git.sourceforge.net/git/gitweb.cgi?p=notion/contrib;a=summary [5] http://anonscm.debian.org/gitweb/?p=collab-maint/notion.git;a=blob;f=debian/copyright;h=1b5a7a9884bff6a6e6c754984620531bfd61c7b7;hb=HEAD OK. I got a package. The repo is at https://github.com/dkogan/notion-scripts This is a plain git-buildpackage repository. Debian branch is master, while the upstream branch is upstream. I did make one patch to the upstream copy itself (updating the README and such), so please merge that in, if you can. Package looks good to me. Lintian reports a few 'I' tags that are probably worth fixing, but they're all pretty minor. Another thing to note is that I'm installing all the scripts to /usr/share/notion, NOT to /etc/X11/notion. /etc is for config files, and none of the scripts are such. I do realize that Debian doesn't conform to this standard very rigidly (/etc/X11 and /etc/init.d is full of non-config files), but no I see no reason to violate this here. Some questions/comments: - Should notion-scripts depend on any particular version of notion? I left it unversioned for now - I left the Suggests field in debian/control as it was. More scripts have been added since the last package was up-to-date, so this list is probably incomplete now - The web addresses in debian/control don't exist yet. If this package becomes hosted on Alioth next to notion itself, these will become correct - I listed myself as the maintainer. I don't have the rights to do this right now, so this assumes that somebody reading this is a DD willing to sponsor this package. Otherwise, the Maintainer field needs to change. - Since the scripts live in THIS package, not in the notion package, the copyright information relating to 'contrib' should be removed from notion's debian/copyright - LICENSE file says GPL3 unless otherwise stated, but some other places state public domain unless otherwise stated. This is a discrepancy that should be resolved. The GPL3 seems to be the wrong one between the two. - The debian/copyright had some of its licenses stated incorrectly (mostly things like GPL vs LGPL, GPL2 vs GPL2+, etc). I corrected these. If anything more needs to happen, I'm bringing it up here. - Some of the scripts had an explicit copyright, but no explicit license. How are these to be treated? I'm calling these out as unspecified in the debian/copyright. Do these revert to public domain? dima -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-bugs-dist-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Bug#691224: notion: ion3-scripts hasn't been migrated to notion-script
OK. I got a package. The repo is at https://github.com/dkogan/notion-scripts That was quick, great. Right now a $ git-buildpackage fails for me with the message gbp:error: upstream is not a valid branch, and if I try to checkout the upstream branch, I get into 'detached HEAD' state with HEAD is now at b9bd818... updated README, verify_index.pl to refer to notion Not sure what's going on there. This is a plain git-buildpackage repository. Debian branch is master, while the upstream branch is upstream. I did make one patch to the upstream copy itself (updating the README and such), so please merge that in, if you can. Please don't make any changes outside of the debian folder, but rather create a debian patch for them. If the patch looks suitable for an inclusion upstream, this will be done and then the patch can be dropped on the next upstream import. Let's simply make that a policy please. :) While I agree that some changes to the README and verify_index.pl are in order, your changes look suitable only for the Debian package. In the upstream version, the README is part of the contrib repository, so I don't think it should refer to the contrib repository through an external url. And also in verify_index.pl, upstream it should refer to the contrib directory, while in the Debian package it should refer to the notion-scripts directory. Can you somehow revert these changes? I'll do something upstream and then you/we can create a debian patch. Another thing to note is that I'm installing all the scripts to /usr/share/notion, NOT to /etc/X11/notion. /etc is for config files, and none of the scripts are such. I do realize that Debian doesn't conform to this standard very rigidly (/etc/X11 and /etc/init.d is full of non-config files), but no I see no reason to violate this here. I completely agree. - Should notion-scripts depend on any particular version of notion? I left it unversioned for now I think we can leave it at that. - I left the Suggests field in debian/control as it was. More scripts have been added since the last package was up-to-date, so this list is probably incomplete now Actually I think we should drop all the current suggests, and only potentially suggest packages that would benefit the script collection as a whole (I can't think of any right now). This is how the irssi-scripts and vim-scripts packages handle it. - The web addresses in debian/control don't exist yet. If this package becomes hosted on Alioth next to notion itself, these will become correct Okay, I'm not sure what is necessary to get it hosted on Alioth, probably Arnout can help here. - I listed myself as the maintainer. I don't have the rights to do this right now, so this assumes that somebody reading this is a DD willing to sponsor this package. Otherwise, the Maintainer field needs to change. The Notion package is also sponsored, so this will probably be the way to go. - Since the scripts live in THIS package, not in the notion package, the copyright information relating to 'contrib' should be removed from notion's debian/copyright Yes, and for this we need to drop the contrib folder from the source package of the notion package. - LICENSE file says GPL3 unless otherwise stated, but some other places state public domain unless otherwise stated. This is a discrepancy that should be resolved. The GPL3 seems to be the wrong one between the two. Ugh, weird. The ion3-scripts package does not contain such a LICENSE file, so I don't even know where it comes from. We'll change this upstream once I've figured out what's going on there. - Some of the scripts had an explicit copyright, but no explicit license. How are these to be treated? I'm calling these out as unspecified in the debian/copyright. Do these revert to public domain? Most of them are by Etan Reisner. I've asked him about it and will let you know about the response. You can find us in #notion on freenode btw. - The debian/copyright had some of its licenses stated incorrectly (mostly things like GPL vs LGPL, GPL2 vs GPL2+, etc). I corrected these. If anything more needs to happen, I'm bringing it up here. I thought I had been rather careful with this ... Anyway, two entries seem to be missing from the new file, is that on purpose? These are: scripts/query_url.lua (C) 2005 Reuben Thomas and released under the GPL, which can only mean GPL Version 1. scripts/xkbion.lua (C) Sergey Redin with LICENSE UNSPECIFIED Regards, Philipp -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-bugs-dist-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Bug#691224: notion: ion3-scripts hasn't been migrated to notion-script
On Wed, Oct 24, 2012 at 10:27:00AM +0200, Philipp Hartwig wrote: scripts/query_url.lua (C) 2005 Reuben Thomas and released under the GPL, which can only mean GPL Version 1. Sorry, that last part is wrong. A quick Google search indicates that GPL without any version specification means any version of the GPL. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-bugs-dist-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Bug#691224: notion: ion3-scripts hasn't been migrated to notion-script
Package: notion Version: 3+2012042300-1 Severity: normal I'm moving my old ion3 install to notion. For the most part it's smooth, but I'm using a piece of the old ion3-scripts package, which doesn't yet have a notion counterpart. If this is simply a manpower issue, not a licensing one, I'm happy to do this. -- System Information: Debian Release: wheezy/sid APT prefers unstable APT policy: (500, 'unstable'), (500, 'testing') Architecture: amd64 (x86_64) Kernel: Linux 3.1.0-1-amd64 (SMP w/2 CPU cores) Locale: LANG=C, LC_CTYPE=C (charmap=ANSI_X3.4-1968) (ignored: LC_ALL set to C) Shell: /bin/sh linked to /bin/dash Versions of packages notion depends on: ii libc62.13-35 ii libice6 2:1.0.8-2 ii liblua5.1-0 5.1.5-4 ii libsm6 2:1.2.1-2 ii libx11-6 2:1.4.99.901-2 ii libxext6 2:1.3.1-2 ii libxinerama1 2:1.1.2-1 ii libxrandr2 2:1.3.2-2 ii x11-utils7.7~1 ii xterm [x-terminal-emulator] 278-2 Versions of packages notion recommends: ii xfonts-100dpi 1:1.0.3 ii xfonts-75dpi 1:1.0.3 Versions of packages notion suggests: pn docker none pn menunone pn notion-doc none pn notion-scripts none -- no debconf information -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-bugs-dist-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Bug#691224: notion: ion3-scripts hasn't been migrated to notion-script
Hi and welcome to Notion, I'm moving my old ion3 install to notion. For the most part it's smooth, but I'm using a piece of the old ion3-scripts package, which doesn't yet have a notion counterpart. If this is simply a manpower issue, not a licensing one, I'm happy to do this. definitely not a licensing issue, we were just focused on getting Notion itself into Debian. If you could start preparing such a package, that would be great! You can find the source of the most recent version of ion3-scripts under [1] . This is probably a good place to start. The most recent version of the scripts is available through the contrib submodule of our main git repository[2]. See [3] for instructions and/or [4] for a web version. Note that the copyright file of the above ion3-scripts package is somewhat lacking. However the copyright file of the current Notion package also includes information on the scripts, see [5], so one should use this information instead. I have made one mistake that needs fixing though. Namely the second sentence of A list of files in the contrib directory with copyright holders other than Tuomo Valkonen follows. Unless otherwise specified the files are distributed unter the same license as the Notion package. is utterly wrong. Instead they are in the public domain. This will be fixed in the next version of the package. I'll be happy to also help out, so we can do this together if you want. Maybe GitHub or a similar site would be a good place. Cheers, Philipp [1] http://snapshot.debian.org/package/ion3-scripts/20070515.debian-1/ [2] git://notion.git.sourceforge.net/gitroot/notion/notion [3] http://sourceforge.net/apps/mediawiki/notion/index.php?title=Development [4] http://notion.git.sourceforge.net/git/gitweb.cgi?p=notion/contrib;a=summary [5] http://anonscm.debian.org/gitweb/?p=collab-maint/notion.git;a=blob;f=debian/copyright;h=1b5a7a9884bff6a6e6c754984620531bfd61c7b7;hb=HEAD -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-bugs-dist-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
