subject:"Bug#719624\: Upgrading xrdp"

Hi Mike,

> I made some cosmetic changes under debian/changelog and re-fixed the
> year-author-syntax in debian/copyright's Copyright: fields.

OK. I skipped that as DEP-5 says that the Copyright: fields may well be an 
exact copy of the copyright notice in the source files.

> Apart from that: Uploaded!!! As the package will go through the NEW
> queue, let's see what the ftp-masters say.

Thanks a lot for the help and the final upload!

Meanwhile, I have started work on guacamole to complete the „modern Linux 
terminal server“ project ;).

Cheers,
Nik

-- 
PGP-Fingerprint: 3C9D 54A4 7575 C026 FB17  FD26 B79A 3C16 A0C4 F296

Dominik George · Mobil: +49-151-61623918

Teckids e.V. · FrOSCon e.V. · OpenRheinRuhr e.V.
Fellowship of the FSFE · Piratenpartei Deutschland
Opencaching Deutschland e.V. · Debian Contributor

LPIC-3 Linux Enterprise Professional (Security)

signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.

Bug#719624: Upgrading xrdp


Hi Nik,

On  Do 02 Jun 2016 23:53:48 CEST, Dominik George wrote:


Hi,


Ack. Please give a short reason in debian/changelog for closing those
bugs, then: e.g.

   - Using VNC as backend is discouraged nowadays and xrdpxorg (or
what's its name) supercedes that VNC backend. Thus closing bug related
to VNC as xrdp backend. (Closes: #1, #2, #3, #4...).


I decided to also add a reportbug note to tell users who use VNC to verify
that the issue they are trying to report does not appear when using VNC
directly.

Hope this is ok for you.

-nik


I made some cosmetic changes under debian/changelog and re-fixed the  
year-author-syntax in debian/copyright's Copyright: fields.


Apart from that: Uploaded!!! As the package will go through the NEW  
queue, let's see what the ftp-masters say.


Good work so far!

Mike
--

DAS-NETZWERKTEAM
mike gabriel, herweg 7, 24357 fleckeby
mobile: +49 (1520) 1976 148
landline: +49 (4354) 8390 139

GnuPG Key ID 0x25771B31
mail: mike.gabr...@das-netzwerkteam.de, http://das-netzwerkteam.de

freeBusy:
https://mail.das-netzwerkteam.de/mailxchange/kronolith/fb.php?u=m.gabriel%40das-netzwerkteam.de


pgp5y1UY34lAh.pgp
Description: Digitale PGP-Signatur

Bug#719624: Upgrading xrdp

Hi,

> Ack. Please give a short reason in debian/changelog for closing those
> bugs, then: e.g.
> 
>- Using VNC as backend is discouraged nowadays and xrdpxorg (or
> what's its name) supercedes that VNC backend. Thus closing bug related
> to VNC as xrdp backend. (Closes: #1, #2, #3, #4...).

I decided to also add a reportbug note to tell users who use VNC to verify 
that the issue they are trying to report does not appear when using VNC 
directly.

Hope this is ok for you.

-nik

-- 
PGP-Fingerprint: 3C9D 54A4 7575 C026 FB17  FD26 B79A 3C16 A0C4 F296

Dominik George · Mobil: +49-151-61623918

Teckids e.V. · FrOSCon e.V. · OpenRheinRuhr e.V.
Fellowship of the FSFE · Piratenpartei Deutschland
Opencaching Deutschland e.V. · Debian Contributor

LPIC-3 Linux Enterprise Professional (Security)

signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.

Bug#719624: Upgrading xrdp


Hi Nik,

On  Do 02 Jun 2016 23:02:09 CEST, Dominik George wrote:


Hi,


Ack. Please give a short reason in debian/changelog for closing those
bugs, then: e.g.

   - Using VNC as backend is discouraged nowadays and xrdpxorg (or
what's its name) supercedes that VNC backend. Thus closing bug related
to VNC as xrdp backend. (Closes: #1, #2, #3, #4...).


Done!

There are some notes from Andreas and you in the changelog. I think they are
irrelevant for the public. Can I drop them?

-nik


If your changes supercede all our changes to the package, then you  
should keep the most recent information.


Example:

  DD 1 adds: debian/control: Bump Standards: to 3.9.7.
  DD 2 adds: debian/control: Bump Standards: to 3.9.8.

  -> drop changelog line for DD 1.

But if any of Andreas's or my changes are still visible in the pkg,  
then you should leave them in debian/changelog.


Example:

  The debian/copyright.in was added by me, you did not update it, I guess.

  -> So you leave it under my name.

The debian/changelog is not only for the user. It is also for other  
DDs, bug hunters and such folks. So technical information should be  
kept, also for the non-technical public.


Mike




--

DAS-NETZWERKTEAM
mike gabriel, herweg 7, 24357 fleckeby
mobile: +49 (1520) 1976 148
landline: +49 (4354) 8390 139

GnuPG Key ID 0x25771B31
mail: mike.gabr...@das-netzwerkteam.de, http://das-netzwerkteam.de

freeBusy:
https://mail.das-netzwerkteam.de/mailxchange/kronolith/fb.php?u=m.gabriel%40das-netzwerkteam.de


pgppyHGmh0p79.pgp
Description: Digitale PGP-Signatur

Bug#719624: Upgrading xrdp

Hi,

> Ack. Please give a short reason in debian/changelog for closing those
> bugs, then: e.g.
> 
>- Using VNC as backend is discouraged nowadays and xrdpxorg (or
> what's its name) supercedes that VNC backend. Thus closing bug related
> to VNC as xrdp backend. (Closes: #1, #2, #3, #4...).

Done!

There are some notes from Andreas and you in the changelog. I think they are 
irrelevant for the public. Can I drop them?

-nik

-- 
PGP-Fingerprint: 3C9D 54A4 7575 C026 FB17  FD26 B79A 3C16 A0C4 F296

Dominik George · Mobil: +49-151-61623918

Teckids e.V. · FrOSCon e.V. · OpenRheinRuhr e.V.
Fellowship of the FSFE · Piratenpartei Deutschland
Opencaching Deutschland e.V. · Debian Contributor

LPIC-3 Linux Enterprise Professional (Security)

signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.

Bug#719624: Upgrading xrdp

Hi,

> As a training task, please do this:
> 
>o remove the above quoted placeholder white-list block
>o run debuild -uc -us -S -Zxz and let lintian provide you
>  with files not mentioned anymore in debian/copyright
>o go over the debian/copyright.in and merge information from
>  there into debian/copyright
>o run debuild -uc -us -S -Zxz and let lintian provide you
>  with files _still_ not mentioned in debian/copyright
>o add those remaining files manually
> 
> This is hard work and unfortunately daily business of a DD (which you
> will probably gonna be some day).

I went a different way because I found more mistakes in the copyright file, 
including licenses that Thorsten identified as the wrong license during his 
license audit. I thus decided to start over with the copyright.in template, 
and merged information from the old copyright file into that. I then added 
some more manually.

Please have a look.

Cheers,
Nik

-- 
PGP-Fingerprint: 3C9D 54A4 7575 C026 FB17  FD26 B79A 3C16 A0C4 F296

Dominik George · Mobil: +49-151-61623918

Teckids e.V. · FrOSCon e.V. · OpenRheinRuhr e.V.
Fellowship of the FSFE · Piratenpartei Deutschland
Opencaching Deutschland e.V. · Debian Contributor

LPIC-3 Linux Enterprise Professional (Security)

signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.

Bug#719624: Upgrading xrdp

Hi Nik,

On Do 02 Jun 2016 01:20:00 CEST, Andreas Tille wrote:

Hi Dominik,

On Thu, Jun 02, 2016 at 12:44:18AM +0200, Dominik George wrote:

newest version is in collab-maint, issues seem to be resolved.

Please test, and, if satisfied, feel free to upload ;).

Very good. Unfortunately I can not test before next Monday. Mike
if you can run a test and upload this would be great.

Kind regards

Andreas.

I just took a look and we are nearly there!!!

The last beast is debian/copyright IMHO.

What you do at the top of debian/copyright is this:

```
Files: *
Copyright: 2003-2015, Jay Sorg
License: Apache-2.0
```

This actually white-lists all files as Apache-2.0 with the given
copyright holder except the files explicitly mentioned further down.

Such a placeholder block covering for all files is ok, if it is correct.

But, well, it is not: e.g. common/fifo.c. That file is not mentioned
further below in debian/copyright, and it has another copyright holder
as given in the top placeholder statement.

(Personally, I think that file lines with placeholders are a very bad
idea over all, because you cannot use lintian to track additions and
removals of files in later upstream releases).

...

So, I presume, there are more such issues in debian/copyright. (I did
not bother looking any further.)

...

What I did instead ist this:

o generate a debian/copyright.in file with this [1] one-liner
(requires pkgs licensecheck and cdbs installed)

o fix the current debian/copyright layout (see my commit on that)

Both commits have been pushed to Git.

As a training task, please do this:

o remove the above quoted placeholder white-list block
o run debuild -uc -us -S -Zxz and let lintian provide you
with files not mentioned anymore in debian/copyright
o go over the debian/copyright.in and merge information from
there into debian/copyright
o run debuild -uc -us -S -Zxz and let lintian provide you
with files _still_ not mentioned in debian/copyright
o add those remaining files manually

This is hard work and unfortunately daily business of a DD (which you
will probably gonna be some day).

Thanks for all your work on this!!!
Mike

[1] licensecheck --copyright -r `find * -type f` |
/usr/lib/cdbs/licensecheck2dep5 > debian/copyright.in

DAS-NETZWERKTEAM
mike gabriel, herweg 7, 24357 fleckeby
mobile: +49 (1520) 1976 148
landline: +49 (4354) 8390 139

GnuPG Key ID 0x25771B31
mail: mike.gabr...@das-netzwerkteam.de, http://das-netzwerkteam.de

freeBusy:
https://mail.das-netzwerkteam.de/mailxchange/kronolith/fb.php?u=m.gabriel%40das-netzwerkteam.de

pgpfA815h1od7.pgp
Description: Digitale PGP-Signatur

Bug#719624: Upgrading xrdp

On Do 02 Jun 2016 21:13:14 CEST, Dominik George wrote:

Hi,

Are you sure that all those bugs can be closed? Have you tested your
version regarding all those reported issues you are closing? If yes.
Then...

Personally, I like to name what I close. I.e. give a short description
how an issue was fixed. If I don't know how it was fixed but that it
was fixed, then... well.

Syntactically, the way you mass close those open bugs is correct
(greppable), but also a little rude. But well, be it like that on such
a code monster.

That's because most or all of these bugs are VNC-related issues. The new xrdp
version discourages the use of VNC as backend to the local X server as we now
have xorgxrdp.

Some of them might still exist when using VNC, but they are in fact issues
with VNC and not specific to xrdp. I can understand that people who used xrdp
i nearlier versions related them to xrdp because xrdp did the VNC stuff
silently. I think they should be closed now because xrdp, used in the
encouraged and default way, does not show them anymore. Another way would be
to reassign them to some vnc server package, but I think that we should
neither put too much time in wrangling VNC bugs to find out which bugs are
still valid, nor should we just reassign them to other packages without
verifying they are still relevant.

xrdp, as a remote desktop solution, does not show these bugs anymore, unless
actively forced to use VNC perhaps, and if people do so, then they do it
actively and know that they are just testing VNC. They should just file a bug
against the VNC server they use for any bug that is still relevant to VNC.

Ack. Please give a short reason in debian/changelog for closing those
bugs, then: e.g.

- Using VNC as backend is discouraged nowadays and xrdpxorg (or
what's its name) supercedes that VNC backend. Thus closing bug related
to VNC as xrdp backend. (Closes: #1, #2, #3, #4...).

Mike

DAS-NETZWERKTEAM
mike gabriel, herweg 7, 24357 fleckeby
mobile: +49 (1520) 1976 148
landline: +49 (4354) 8390 139

GnuPG Key ID 0x25771B31
mail: mike.gabr...@das-netzwerkteam.de, http://das-netzwerkteam.de

freeBusy:
https://mail.das-netzwerkteam.de/mailxchange/kronolith/fb.php?u=m.gabriel%40das-netzwerkteam.de

pgpYQhY2l__Yr.pgp
Description: Digitale PGP-Signatur

Bug#719624: Upgrading xrdp

Hi,

> Are you sure that all those bugs can be closed? Have you tested your
> version regarding all those reported issues you are closing? If yes.
> Then...
> 
> Personally, I like to name what I close. I.e. give a short description
> how an issue was fixed. If I don't know how it was fixed but that it
> was fixed, then... well.
> 
> Syntactically, the way you mass close those open bugs is correct
> (greppable), but also a little rude. But well, be it like that on such
> a code monster.

That's because most or all of these bugs are VNC-related issues. The new xrdp 
version discourages the use of VNC as backend to the local X server as we now 
have xorgxrdp.

Some of them might still exist when using VNC, but they are in fact issues 
with VNC and not specific to xrdp. I can understand that people who used xrdp 
i nearlier versions related them to xrdp because xrdp did the VNC stuff 
silently. I think they should be closed now because xrdp, used in the 
encouraged and default way, does not show them anymore. Another way would be 
to reassign them to some vnc server package, but I think that we should 
neither put too much time in wrangling VNC bugs to find out which bugs are 
still valid, nor should we just reassign them to other packages without 
verifying they are still relevant.

xrdp, as a remote desktop solution, does not show these bugs anymore, unless 
actively forced to use VNC perhaps, and if people do so, then they do it 
actively and know that they are just testing VNC. They should just file a bug 
against the VNC server they use for any bug that is still relevant to VNC.

Cheers,
Nik

-- 
PGP-Fingerprint: 3C9D 54A4 7575 C026 FB17  FD26 B79A 3C16 A0C4 F296

Dominik George · Mobil: +49-151-61623918

Teckids e.V. · FrOSCon e.V. · OpenRheinRuhr e.V.
Fellowship of the FSFE · Piratenpartei Deutschland
Opencaching Deutschland e.V. · Debian Contributor

LPIC-3 Linux Enterprise Professional (Security)

signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.

Bug#719624: Upgrading xrdp


Hi Dominik,

On  Do 02 Jun 2016 01:26:30 CEST, Dominik George wrote:


Hi,

one more question:

Is the „Closes:“ line in changelog syntactically correct to close  
all the bugs?


-nik


Are you sure that all those bugs can be closed? Have you tested your  
version regarding all those reported issues you are closing? If yes.  
Then...


Personally, I like to name what I close. I.e. give a short description  
how an issue was fixed. If I don't know how it was fixed but that it  
was fixed, then... well.


Syntactically, the way you mass close those open bugs is correct  
(greppable), but also a little rude. But well, be it like that on such  
a code monster.



Mike
--

DAS-NETZWERKTEAM
mike gabriel, herweg 7, 24357 fleckeby
mobile: +49 (1520) 1976 148
landline: +49 (4354) 8390 139

GnuPG Key ID 0x25771B31
mail: mike.gabr...@das-netzwerkteam.de, http://das-netzwerkteam.de

freeBusy:
https://mail.das-netzwerkteam.de/mailxchange/kronolith/fb.php?u=m.gabriel%40das-netzwerkteam.de


pgpewK3uOCbnz.pgp
Description: Digitale PGP-Signatur

Bug#719624: Upgrading xrdp

2016-06-02 Thread Holger Levsen

On Thu, Jun 02, 2016 at 06:19:58AM +0200, Andreas Tille wrote:
> Without checking: After Building you get a *.changes file. 

run lintian on it to check, lintian will complain if the syntax is
wrong…

lintian $changes_file


-- 
cheers,
Holger


signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Bug#719624: Upgrading xrdp

Without checking: After Building you get a *.changes file.  Open this
and check whether it has a Closes: line featuring all the bugs you want
to close.
Sorry for my brewity
Andreas.

On Thu, Jun 02, 2016 at 01:26:30AM +0200, Dominik George wrote:
> Hi,
> 
> one more question:
> 
> Is the „Closes:“ line in changelog syntactically correct to close all the 
> bugs?
> 
> -nik
> -- 
> PGP-Fingerprint: 3C9D 54A4 7575 C026 FB17 FD26 B79A 3C16 A0C4 F296
> 
> Dominik George · Mobil: +49-151-61623918
> 
> Teckids e.V. · FrOSCon e.V. · OpenRheinRuhr e.V.
> Fellowship of the FSFE · Piratenpartei Deutschland
> Opencaching Deutschland e.V. · Debian Contributor
> 
> LPIC-3 Linux Enterprise Professional (Security)
> 

-- 
http://fam-tille.de

Bug#719624: Upgrading xrdp

Hi,

one more question:

Is the „Closes:“ line in changelog syntactically correct to close all the bugs?

-nik
-- 
PGP-Fingerprint: 3C9D 54A4 7575 C026 FB17 FD26 B79A 3C16 A0C4 F296

Dominik George · Mobil: +49-151-61623918

Teckids e.V. · FrOSCon e.V. · OpenRheinRuhr e.V.
Fellowship of the FSFE · Piratenpartei Deutschland
Opencaching Deutschland e.V. · Debian Contributor

LPIC-3 Linux Enterprise Professional (Security)

Bug#719624: Upgrading xrdp

Hi Dominik,

On Thu, Jun 02, 2016 at 12:44:18AM +0200, Dominik George wrote:
> newest version is in collab-maint, issues seem to be resolved.
> 
> Please test, and, if satisfied, feel free to upload ;).

Very good.  Unfortunately I can not test before next Monday.  Mike
if you can run a test and upload this would be great.

Kind regards

  Andreas.

-- 
http://fam-tille.de

Bug#719624: Upgrading xrdp

Hi,

newest version is in collab-maint, issues seem to be resolved.

Please test, and, if satisfied, feel free to upload ;).

Cheers,
Nik

-- 
PGP-Fingerprint: 3C9D 54A4 7575 C026 FB17  FD26 B79A 3C16 A0C4 F296

Dominik George · Mobil: +49-151-61623918

Teckids e.V. · FrOSCon e.V. · OpenRheinRuhr e.V.
Fellowship of the FSFE · Piratenpartei Deutschland
Opencaching Deutschland e.V. · Debian Contributor

LPIC-3 Linux Enterprise Professional (Security)

signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.

Bug#719624: Upgrading xrdp

2016-06-01 Thread Mike Gabriel

Hi

On Wed Jun 1 20:23:15 2016 GMT+0200, Andreas Tille wrote:
> On Wed, Jun 01, 2016 at 08:16:20PM +0200, Dominik George wrote:
> > We tried to avoid updateing to a new upstream commit as the one in use was 
> > well-tested, but looking through the changes, there has been a big diff, 
> > but 
> > almost all of it seems to be fixing warnings and code formatting.
> > 
> > So right now, we'd prefer to just move to the most recent upstream commit 
> > (after testing, of course).
> 
> Sounds pretty sensible - please go for it.
> 
> Kind regards
> 
> Andreas.

/me nods from here, too.

-- 
Sent from my Jolla

Bug#719624: Upgrading xrdp

On Wed, Jun 01, 2016 at 08:16:20PM +0200, Dominik George wrote:
> We tried to avoid updateing to a new upstream commit as the one in use was 
> well-tested, but looking through the changes, there has been a big diff, but 
> almost all of it seems to be fixing warnings and code formatting.
> 
> So right now, we'd prefer to just move to the most recent upstream commit 
> (after testing, of course).

Sounds pretty sensible - please go for it.

Kind regards

Andreas.

-- 
http://fam-tille.de

Bug#719624: Upgrading xrdp

Hi,

> > While I do agree with you, please give us a few more days (three, let's
> > say) to find a workaround. I have something schemed, but need to find out
> > whether it is too ugly to share or not ;).
> > 

Something new:

Upstream actually seems to have a patch that fixes this issue.

We tried to avoid updateing to a new upstream commit as the one in use was 
well-tested, but looking through the changes, there has been a big diff, but 
almost all of it seems to be fixing warnings and code formatting.

So right now, we'd prefer to just move to the most recent upstream commit 
(after testing, of course).

-nik

-- 
PGP-Fingerprint: 3C9D 54A4 7575 C026 FB17  FD26 B79A 3C16 A0C4 F296

Dominik George · Mobil: +49-151-61623918

Teckids e.V. · FrOSCon e.V. · OpenRheinRuhr e.V.
Fellowship of the FSFE · Piratenpartei Deutschland
Opencaching Deutschland e.V. · Debian Contributor

LPIC-3 Linux Enterprise Professional (Security)

signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.

Bug#719624: Upgrading xrdp

2016-06-01 Thread Mike Gabriel


On  Mi 01 Jun 2016 11:31:49 CEST, Dominik George wrote:


Hi,


GTK3 and Qt5 are tricky in remote environments, anyway. It is mostly
because of upstream devs not being aware enough of remote desktop
technologies.

Personally, I think, we should / you should upload xrdp as is now to
Debian unstable (not experimental, really unstable) and open the space
for more testers inside Debian.

The issue should be reported as a bug immediately referencing this ITA
bug for backlog reference.


While I do agree with you, please give us a few more days (three, let's say)
to find a workaround. I have something schemed, but need to find out whether
it is too ugly to share or not ;).

-nik


Ack.

Mike
--

DAS-NETZWERKTEAM
mike gabriel, herweg 7, 24357 fleckeby
mobile: +49 (1520) 1976 148
landline: +49 (4354) 8390 139

GnuPG Key ID 0x25771B31
mail: mike.gabr...@das-netzwerkteam.de, http://das-netzwerkteam.de

freeBusy:
https://mail.das-netzwerkteam.de/mailxchange/kronolith/fb.php?u=m.gabriel%40das-netzwerkteam.de


pgpxtYnoacnMu.pgp
Description: Digitale PGP-Signatur

Bug#719624: Upgrading xrdp

Hi,

> GTK3 and Qt5 are tricky in remote environments, anyway. It is mostly
> because of upstream devs not being aware enough of remote desktop
> technologies.
> 
> Personally, I think, we should / you should upload xrdp as is now to
> Debian unstable (not experimental, really unstable) and open the space
> for more testers inside Debian.
> 
> The issue should be reported as a bug immediately referencing this ITA
> bug for backlog reference.

While I do agree with you, please give us a few more days (three, let's say) 
to find a workaround. I have something schemed, but need to find out whether 
it is too ugly to share or not ;).

-nik

-- 
PGP-Fingerprint: 3C9D 54A4 7575 C026 FB17  FD26 B79A 3C16 A0C4 F296

Dominik George · Mobil: +49-151-61623918

Teckids e.V. · FrOSCon e.V. · OpenRheinRuhr e.V.
Fellowship of the FSFE · Piratenpartei Deutschland
Opencaching Deutschland e.V. · Debian Contributor

LPIC-3 Linux Enterprise Professional (Security)

signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.

Bug#719624: Upgrading xrdp

2016-06-01 Thread Mike Gabriel


Hi Dominik, Andreas,

On  Mi 01 Jun 2016 11:15:36 CEST, Andreas Tille wrote:


On Wed, Jun 01, 2016 at 10:30:02AM +0200, Dominik George wrote:


We know that GTK3 and/or Qt5 components are somehow involved. They  
seem to reset the layout in some way on startup. Why and how, I  
don't know yet. I also do not know yet whether this is a GTK/Qt bug  
or an x11rdp bug. We see the same issue with Qt5 and VNC, but VNC  
over xrdp does seem to work.


Sounds tricky.

Being back from illness and a Teckids camp, more details will  
follow tonight.


Thanks for your effort into this.

Kind regards

  Andreas.


GTK3 and Qt5 are tricky in remote environments, anyway. It is mostly  
because of upstream devs not being aware enough of remote desktop  
technologies.


Personally, I think, we should / you should upload xrdp as is now to  
Debian unstable (not experimental, really unstable) and open the space  
for more testers inside Debian.


The issue should be reported as a bug immediately referencing this ITA  
bug for backlog reference.


my 2¢
Mike
--

DAS-NETZWERKTEAM
mike gabriel, herweg 7, 24357 fleckeby
mobile: +49 (1520) 1976 148
landline: +49 (4354) 8390 139

GnuPG Key ID 0x25771B31
mail: mike.gabr...@das-netzwerkteam.de, http://das-netzwerkteam.de

freeBusy:
https://mail.das-netzwerkteam.de/mailxchange/kronolith/fb.php?u=m.gabriel%40das-netzwerkteam.de


pgp7A8chQgmu5.pgp
Description: Digitale PGP-Signatur

Bug#719624: Upgrading xrdp

On Wed, Jun 01, 2016 at 10:30:02AM +0200, Dominik George wrote:
> 
> We know that GTK3 and/or Qt5 components are somehow involved. They seem to 
> reset the layout in some way on startup. Why and how, I don't know yet. I 
> also do not know yet whether this is a GTK/Qt bug or an x11rdp bug. We see 
> the same issue with Qt5 and VNC, but VNC over xrdp does seem to work.

Sounds tricky.
 
> Being back from illness and a Teckids camp, more details will follow tonight.

Thanks for your effort into this.

Kind regards

  Andreas. 

-- 
http://fam-tille.de

Bug#719624: Upgrading xrdp

Hi,

>> I've scheduled a session for that at our organisation's meeting this
>weekend.
>
>Any outcome of this session?

Yes, to some extent.

We know that GTK3 and/or Qt5 components are somehow involved. They seem to 
reset the layout in some way on startup. Why and how, I don't know yet. I also 
do not know yet whether this is a GTK/Qt bug or an x11rdp bug. We see the same 
issue with Qt5 and VNC, but VNC over xrdp does seem to work.

Being back from illness and a Teckids camp, more details will follow tonight.

-nik
-- 
PGP-Fingerprint: 3C9D 54A4 7575 C026 FB17 FD26 B79A 3C16 A0C4 F296

Dominik George · Mobil: +49-151-61623918

Teckids e.V. · FrOSCon e.V. · OpenRheinRuhr e.V.
Fellowship of the FSFE · Piratenpartei Deutschland
Opencaching Deutschland e.V. · Debian Contributor

LPIC-3 Linux Enterprise Professional (Security)

Bug#719624: Upgrading xrdp

2016-05-26 Thread Andreas Tille

On Wed, May 18, 2016 at 04:18:22PM +0200, Dominik George wrote:
> > > Well, at least I got hold of a client system fortesting by now.
> > 
> > Fine.  Just let me know if I should test in my system which actually has
> > shown the problem.  I'd happily help out with testing.
> 
> I've scheduled a session for that at our organisation's meeting this weekend.

Any outcome of this session?

Kind regards

  Andreas. 

-- 
http://fam-tille.de

Bug#719624: Upgrading xrdp

2016-05-18 Thread Andreas Tille

On Wed, May 18, 2016 at 03:20:58PM +0200, Dominik George wrote:
> Hi,
> 
> > Do you have any news for this last showstopper to upload the new version
> > (at least I'd upload once this is fixed).
> 
> Well, at least I got hold of a client system fortesting by now.

Fine.  Just let me know if I should test in my system which actually has
shown the problem.  I'd happily help out with testing.

Kind regards

 Andreas.

-- 
http://fam-tille.de

Bug#719624: Upgrading xrdp

2016-05-18 Thread Dominik George

> > Well, at least I got hold of a client system fortesting by now.
> 
> Fine.  Just let me know if I should test in my system which actually has
> shown the problem.  I'd happily help out with testing.

I've scheduled a session for that at our organisation's meeting this weekend.

-nik

-- 
PGP-Fingerprint: 3C9D 54A4 7575 C026 FB17  FD26 B79A 3C16 A0C4 F296

Dominik George · Mobil: +49-151-61623918

Teckids e.V. · FrOSCon e.V. · OpenRheinRuhr e.V.
Fellowship of the FSFE · Piratenpartei Deutschland
Opencaching Deutschland e.V. · Debian Contributor

LPIC-3 Linux Enterprise Professional (Security)

Bug#719624: Upgrading xrdp

2016-05-18 Thread Dominik George

Hi,

> Do you have any news for this last showstopper to upload the new version
> (at least I'd upload once this is fixed).

Well, at least I got hold of a client system fortesting by now.

Cheers,
Nik

-- 
PGP-Fingerprint: 3C9D 54A4 7575 C026 FB17  FD26 B79A 3C16 A0C4 F296

Dominik George · Mobil: +49-151-61623918

Teckids e.V. · FrOSCon e.V. · OpenRheinRuhr e.V.
Fellowship of the FSFE · Piratenpartei Deutschland
Opencaching Deutschland e.V. · Debian Contributor

LPIC-3 Linux Enterprise Professional (Security)

Bug#719624: Upgrading xrdp

2016-05-10 Thread Andreas Tille

Hi Dominik,

On Thu, Apr 28, 2016 at 07:21:24PM +0200, Andreas Tille wrote:
>  
> > I think we will be able to fix this issue.
> 
> Sound promissing after  "setxkbmap de"  seems to fix the issue.

Do you have any news for this last showstopper to upload the new version
(at least I'd upload once this is fixed).

Kind regards

   Andreas.

-- 
http://fam-tille.de

Bug#719624: Upgrading xrdp

2016-04-28 Thread Andreas Tille

On Thu, Apr 28, 2016 at 07:09:37PM +0200, Dominik George wrote:
> > I definitely needed to install xorgxrdp as well to get my normal desktop
> > as usual.  While on normal apt-get installs Recommends are installed I
> > wonder what alternative could bring up a sensible desktop otherwise and
> > what a user needs to to to activate this.  If there is no such
> > alternative its probably better to use Depends: xorgxrdp rather than
> > Recommends.
> 
> Well, you could still use VNC by selecting the VNC session from the session 
> selector in the login screen.

Ahhh, that's OK, thought.
 
> I figure that packages can assume that Recommends are installed when choosing 
> their default behaviour and that someone who disables Install-Recommends 
> knows 
> that they might want to align configuration accordingly.

Yes.
 
> However, if you think that the default configuration should work even without 
> Install-Recommends, we can also make xorgxrdp a dependency.

No, forget my comment.

> > One I've got the desktop connection I tested the keyboard in a normal
> > xterm.  What should I say: No special German characters, other keys are
> > quite unexpected.  I somehow feel back in the time where we were
> > desperately seeking a remote connection technique that has all the keys
> > printed on a German keyboard right on the remote computer.  Any idea
> > how this could be fixed?
> 
> We actually saw that with a single Microsoft Remote Desktop client version, I 
> think the one from Windows 7.

Well, yes - that's the case here and this is no subject to change for
the next year(s).

> Windows Vista and Windows 8 worked flawlessly It 
> also seemed to be connected to a GNOME bug because it didn't happen with 
> other 
> desktops. *However*, this also happened with the old xrdp.

In the setup we are currently using Jessie xrdp did a sensible job
compared to all alternatives we tried.
 
> Could you please try what happens when you force de layout on the server by 
> executing „setxkbmap de“ once after login?

Cool.  This works nicely even with @| etc, where you need AltGr.
 
> I think we will be able to fix this issue.

Sound promissing after  "setxkbmap de"  seems to fix the issue.
 
> > I also forced on the stable (Jessie) machine the actual Jessie version via
> > 
> > $ sudo apt-get install xrdp=0.6.1-2
> > 
> > and than tried
> > 
> > $ LC_ALL=C sudo dpkg -i xrdp_0.9.0~20150902+gitc0ef543-1_amd64.deb
> > $ LC_ALL=C sudo dpkg -i xrdp_0.9.0~20150902+gitc0ef543-1_amd64.deb
> > (Reading database ... 357723 files and directories currently installed.)
> > Preparing to unpack xrdp_0.9.0~20150902+gitc0ef543-1_amd64.deb ...
> > Unpacking xrdp (0.9.0~20150902+gitc0ef543-1) over
> > (0.9.0~20150902+gitc0ef543-1) ... Setting up xrdp
> > (0.9.0~20150902+gitc0ef543-1) ...
> > E: /var/run/xrdp has wrong permissions
> > invoke-rc.d: initscript xrdp, action "start" failed.
> > dpkg: error processing package xrdp (--install):
> >  subprocess installed post-installation script returned error exit status 1
> > Processing triggers for libc-bin (2.19-18+deb8u4) ...
> > Processing triggers for man-db (2.7.0.2-5) ...
> > Processing triggers for systemd (215-17+deb8u4) ...
> > Errors were encountered while processing:
> >  xrdp
> 
> That would mean the upgrade path is broken. That's strange because we 
> actually 
> upgraded from the old package to our new one on jessie.
> 
> Did you install 0.9.0 before installing 0.6.2, i.e. did you downgrade in the 
> first place?

Yes, that's what actually happened.  I did not tried a "clean upgrade".

Should I purge everything and try the clean 0.6.2 -> 0.9.0 upgrade just
for verification?

Kind regards

  Andreas.

-- 
http://fam-tille.de

Bug#719624: Upgrading xrdp

2016-04-28 Thread Dominik George

Hi,

> My first attempt to connect from a windows machine to my test linux box
> just brings up a ligthblue empty space (same color as xrdp login screen)
> but no window manager or desktop environment (I'm using xfce by
> default).
> 
> I definitely needed to install xorgxrdp as well to get my normal desktop
> as usual.  While on normal apt-get installs Recommends are installed I
> wonder what alternative could bring up a sensible desktop otherwise and
> what a user needs to to to activate this.  If there is no such
> alternative its probably better to use Depends: xorgxrdp rather than
> Recommends.

Well, you could still use VNC by selecting the VNC session from the session 
selector in the login screen.

I figure that packages can assume that Recommends are installed when choosing 
their default behaviour and that someone who disables Install-Recommends knows 
that they might want to align configuration accordingly.

However, if you think that the default configuration should work even without 
Install-Recommends, we can also make xorgxrdp a dependency.

> One I've got the desktop connection I tested the keyboard in a normal
> xterm.  What should I say: No special German characters, other keys are
> quite unexpected.  I somehow feel back in the time where we were
> desperately seeking a remote connection technique that has all the keys
> printed on a German keyboard right on the remote computer.  Any idea
> how this could be fixed?

We actually saw that with a single Microsoft Remote Desktop client version, I 
think the one from Windows 7. Windows Vista and Windows 8 worked flawlessly It 
also seemed to be connected to a GNOME bug because it didn't happen with other 
desktops. *However*, this also happened with the old xrdp.

Could you please try what happens when you force de layout on the server by 
executing „setxkbmap de“ once after login?

I think we will be able to fix this issue.

> 
> I also forced on the stable (Jessie) machine the actual Jessie version via
> 
> $ sudo apt-get install xrdp=0.6.1-2
> 
> and than tried
> 
> $ LC_ALL=C sudo dpkg -i xrdp_0.9.0~20150902+gitc0ef543-1_amd64.deb
> $ LC_ALL=C sudo dpkg -i xrdp_0.9.0~20150902+gitc0ef543-1_amd64.deb
> (Reading database ... 357723 files and directories currently installed.)
> Preparing to unpack xrdp_0.9.0~20150902+gitc0ef543-1_amd64.deb ...
> Unpacking xrdp (0.9.0~20150902+gitc0ef543-1) over
> (0.9.0~20150902+gitc0ef543-1) ... Setting up xrdp
> (0.9.0~20150902+gitc0ef543-1) ...
> E: /var/run/xrdp has wrong permissions
> invoke-rc.d: initscript xrdp, action "start" failed.
> dpkg: error processing package xrdp (--install):
>  subprocess installed post-installation script returned error exit status 1
> Processing triggers for libc-bin (2.19-18+deb8u4) ...
> Processing triggers for man-db (2.7.0.2-5) ...
> Processing triggers for systemd (215-17+deb8u4) ...
> Errors were encountered while processing:
>  xrdp

That would mean the upgrade path is broken. That's strange because we actually 
upgraded from the old package to our new one on jessie.

Did you install 0.9.0 before installing 0.6.2, i.e. did you downgrade in the 
first place?

Cheers,
Nik

-- 
PGP-Fingerprint: 3C9D 54A4 7575 C026 FB17  FD26 B79A 3C16 A0C4 F296

Dominik George · Mobil: +49-151-61623918

Teckids e.V. · FrOSCon e.V. · OpenRheinRuhr e.V.
Fellowship of the FSFE · Piratenpartei Deutschland
Opencaching Deutschland e.V. · Debian Contributor

LPIC-3 Linux Enterprise Professional (Security)

Bug#719624: Upgrading xrdp

2016-04-28 Thread Andreas Tille

Hi Dominik,

On Wed, Apr 27, 2016 at 10:00:32PM +0200, Dominik George wrote:
> Him
> 
> > Seems like you forgot to add debian/startwm.sh to the repository.
> 
> Oops, yes, it got lost somewhere.
> 
> I added it now.

Thanks.  I think we are quite there.  I cleaned up the changelog from my
previous attempt which was unreleased and thus should not have a
separate changelog entry.  So I merged the changes which are not
overriden by any change of yours into the current changelog paragraph.

I did some further lintian polishing.  I also renamed xrdp.NEWS to
NEWS.Debian.  I'm not sure how apt would deal with xrdp.NEWS and so to
be very sure that local admins are informed I used NEWS.Debian which is
displayed at install time.

The only remaining lintian issue is:

W: xrdp: executable-not-elf-or-script usr/share/xrdp/socksetup

I admit I'm not sure if this file will be executed and should get a
proper interpreter line or if it simply should made non-executable.
If you don't know we even can ignore this one.

My first attempt to connect from a windows machine to my test linux box
just brings up a ligthblue empty space (same color as xrdp login screen)
but no window manager or desktop environment (I'm using xfce by
default).

I definitely needed to install xorgxrdp as well to get my normal desktop
as usual.  While on normal apt-get installs Recommends are installed I
wonder what alternative could bring up a sensible desktop otherwise and
what a user needs to to to activate this.  If there is no such
alternative its probably better to use Depends: xorgxrdp rather than
Recommends.

One I've got the desktop connection I tested the keyboard in a normal
xterm.  What should I say: No special German characters, other keys are
quite unexpected.  I somehow feel back in the time where we were
desperately seeking a remote connection technique that has all the keys
printed on a German keyboard right on the remote computer.  Any idea
how this could be fixed?

I also forced on the stable (Jessie) machine the actual Jessie version via

$ sudo apt-get install xrdp=0.6.1-2

and than tried

$ LC_ALL=C sudo dpkg -i xrdp_0.9.0~20150902+gitc0ef543-1_amd64.deb 
$ LC_ALL=C sudo dpkg -i xrdp_0.9.0~20150902+gitc0ef543-1_amd64.deb
(Reading database ... 357723 files and directories currently installed.)
Preparing to unpack xrdp_0.9.0~20150902+gitc0ef543-1_amd64.deb ...
Unpacking xrdp (0.9.0~20150902+gitc0ef543-1) over (0.9.0~20150902+gitc0ef543-1) 
...
Setting up xrdp (0.9.0~20150902+gitc0ef543-1) ...
E: /var/run/xrdp has wrong permissions
invoke-rc.d: initscript xrdp, action "start" failed.
dpkg: error processing package xrdp (--install):
 subprocess installed post-installation script returned error exit status 1
Processing triggers for libc-bin (2.19-18+deb8u4) ...
Processing triggers for man-db (2.7.0.2-5) ...
Processing triggers for systemd (215-17+deb8u4) ...
Errors were encountered while processing:
 xrdp

I have

$ ls -ld /var/run/xrdp
drwxrwsr-x 3 xrdp xrdp 60 Apr 28 18:23 /var/run/xrdp

No idea in how far this is a "wrong permission".  I needed to rm -rf this
dir to continue.

Hope these are solvable issues.  Are you able to reproduce these or do
you need further information.

Kind regards

   Andreas.

-- 
http://fam-tille.de

Bug#719624: Upgrading xrdp

2016-04-27 Thread Dominik George

Him

> Seems like you forgot to add debian/startwm.sh to the repository.

Oops, yes, it got lost somewhere.

I added it now.

-nik

-- 
PGP-Fingerprint: 3C9D 54A4 7575 C026 FB17  FD26 B79A 3C16 A0C4 F296

Dominik George · Mobil: +49-151-61623918

Teckids e.V. · FrOSCon e.V. · OpenRheinRuhr e.V.
Fellowship of the FSFE · Piratenpartei Deutschland
Opencaching Deutschland e.V. · Debian Contributor

LPIC-3 Linux Enterprise Professional (Security)

signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.

Bug#719624: Upgrading xrdp

2016-04-25 Thread Andreas Tille

Hi Dominik,

On Tue, Apr 19, 2016 at 12:06:55PM +0200, Dominik George wrote:
> >How has got this knowledge and how.
> 
> We have been running this commit in production for almost a year. We started 
> with what used to be HEAD for a very long time. It was bleeding edge whem we 
> started. The specific commit used now is that state that was „stable“ for the 
> repo for a long time, plus many patches upstream incorporated from us that 
> make upstream DFSG-free.
> 
> Right now, there is almost daily activity in the repo so right now, there is 
> no way of picking a specific new commit. So we stick to the one that used to 
> be „stable“ in upstream's view.

I've tried to build the current state of Git but this ended in

make[1]: Leaving directory '/build/xrdp-0.9.0~20150902+gitc0ef543'
   dh_install
dh_install: Cannot find (any matches for) "debian/startwm.sh" (tried in "." and 
"debian/tmp")
dh_install: xrdp missing files: debian/startwm.sh
dh_install: missing files, aborting
debian/rules:34: recipe for target 'binary' failed


Seems like you forgot to add debian/startwm.sh to the repository.

Kind regards

  Andreas. 

-- 
http://fam-tille.de

Bug#719624: Upgrading xrdp

Hi Mike,

On Tue, Apr 19, 2016 at 10:17:07AM +, Mike Gabriel wrote:
> 
> Personally, I am not a great fan of gbp. It has caused me more trouble than
> served any good (and I really think that gbp is a great tool for Debian
> packaging, as I said, my personal workflow does not use it).
> 
> What I prefer doing (and this is personal style, really):
> 
>   o Have a well-defined tarball (i.e. provided by upstream, Debian archive
> (snapshot.debian.org), pristine-tar)
>   o Have a Git repo with debian/ folder only.
> 
> Then I do:
> 
>   o Obtain the tarball (get-orig-source, pristine-tar checkout, etc.)
>   o then:
> 
>   $ debuild -uc -us -S -Zxz (on the folder with the debian/ folder only
> in it)
>   $ cd ..
>   $ sbuild -sAd unstable 
> 
> That works perfectly for all of my packages (MATE desktop, GOsa).

So you are using the workflow I use with SVN. :-)

> I once dropped using gbp when I discovered that gbp does not support
> multi-tarball Debian packages (GOsa packaging is unhandable with gbp). This
> may have changed meanwhile, but I don't see that benefit of shipping
> upstream code in packaging repos. (Maybe I have looked to much at
> http://pkgs.fedoraproject.org/cgit/rpms/, as well).

I can confirm that the benefit of having upstream code is limited - for
your workflow its probably not needed.

> About the tarball download source: Once some upstream release has been
> uploaded to Debian with source format 3.0, I consider the upstream tarball
> being available in Debian (or on snapshots.debian.org). Personally, I don't
> see the extra gain of shipping the same code in Git. Again, very personal
> style and way of seeing things.

I have no idea how many packages I touched in Debian Med team Git but
its possibly more than 100.  Our team policy was developed by several
people all confident that gbp is a great tool and I adapted to this
workflow with some stumbling stones in the beginning.  My summary is: I
have the least problems with this compared to all other workflows I
adapted to.  Thus I convert any package with tarballs diverging from an
upstream download tarball to this repository layout.  Since I personally
do not see any disadvantage for your workflow (despite the fact that
some extra diskspace might be consumed) I would be really happy if we
could agree upon this for xrdp.

Kind regards

 Andreas.

-- 
http://fam-tille.de

Bug#719624: Upgrading xrdp

Hi Dominik,

On Tue, Apr 19, 2016 at 12:06:55PM +0200, Dominik George wrote:
> 
> We have been running this commit in production for almost a year. We started 
> with what used to be HEAD for a very long time. It was bleeding edge whem we 
> started. The specific commit used now is that state that was „stable“ for the 
> repo for a long time, plus many patches upstream incorporated from us that 
> make upstream DFSG-free.
> 
> Right now, there is almost daily activity in the repo so right now, there is 
> no way of picking a specific new commit. So we stick to the one that used to 
> be „stable“ in upstream's view.

Sounds pretty convincing.  Could you please add this to README.source? 

Kind regards

 Andreas.

-- 
http://fam-tille.de

Bug#719624: Upgrading xrdp

2016-04-19 Thread Mike Gabriel

Hi Andreas,

On Di 19 Apr 2016 12:00:39 CEST, Andreas Tille wrote:

Hi Dominik,

On Tue, Apr 19, 2016 at 11:49:38AM +0200, Dominik George wrote:

>> * It only contains debian/ now.
>
>Do you have any reason for this?

Yes, because that's what Mike originally asked for, unless I got him wrong.

I do not see any good reason for this kind of advise. Mike, could you
please confirm that you are against keeping the upstream source inside
the archive. IMHO this is against a very common gbp workflow and in
this specific case I think its definitely needed.

Personally, I am not a great fan of gbp. It has caused me more trouble
than served any good (and I really think that gbp is a great tool for
Debian packaging, as I said, my personal workflow does not use it).

What I prefer doing (and this is personal style, really):

o Have a well-defined tarball (i.e. provided by upstream, Debian
archive (snapshot.debian.org), pristine-tar)

o Have a Git repo with debian/ folder only.

Then I do:

o Obtain the tarball (get-orig-source, pristine-tar checkout, etc.)
o then:

$ debuild -uc -us -S -Zxz (on the folder with the debian/
folder only in it)

$ cd ..
$ sbuild -sAd unstable

That works perfectly for all of my packages (MATE desktop, GOsa).

I once dropped using gbp when I discovered that gbp does not support
multi-tarball Debian packages (GOsa packaging is unhandable with gbp).
This may have changed meanwhile, but I don't see that benefit of
shipping upstream code in packaging repos. (Maybe I have looked to
much at http://pkgs.fedoraproject.org/cgit/rpms/, as well).

About the tarball download source: Once some upstream release has been
uploaded to Debian with source format 3.0, I consider the upstream
tarball being available in Debian (or on snapshots.debian.org).
Personally, I don't see the extra gain of shipping the same code in
Git. Again, very personal style and way of seeing things.

[...]

Greets,
Mike

DAS-NETZWERKTEAM
mike gabriel, herweg 7, 24357 fleckeby
fon: +49 (1520) 1976 148

GnuPG Key ID 0x25771B31
mail: mike.gabr...@das-netzwerkteam.de, http://das-netzwerkteam.de

freeBusy:
https://mail.das-netzwerkteam.de/mailxchange/kronolith/fb.php?u=m.gabriel%40das-netzwerkteam.de

pgpIkDJuWyN8U.pgp
Description: Digitale PGP-Signatur

Bug#719624: Upgrading xrdp

2016-04-19 Thread Christian Pernegger

Hi,

might I suggest keeping the old and new xrdp packages in parallel for a
while? Maybe call the latter xrdp-git, then fold it into xrdp once there is
a release? It sounds to me like there were quite a lot of (upstream)
changes between the two and I'm not sure how clean the upgrade path is,
teething problems etc.

Cheers,
Christian

2016-04-19 12:00 GMT+02:00 Andreas Tille :

> Hi Dominik,
>
> On Tue, Apr 19, 2016 at 11:49:38AM +0200, Dominik George wrote:
> > >>  * It only contains debian/ now.
> > >
> > >Do you have any reason for this?
> >
> > Yes, because that's what Mike originally asked for, unless I got him
> wrong.
>
> I do not see any good reason for this kind of advise.  Mike, could you
> please confirm that you are against keeping the upstream source inside
> the archive.  IMHO this is against a very common gbp workflow and in
> this specific case I think its definitely needed.
>
> > >I'm missing the background knowledge to decide this so I'll leave this
> > >to you.  I have no idea about the motivation to pick a specific commit
> > >and not any other - it would be s helpful if upstream would tag
> > >releases.
> >
> > The only reason for the specific commit is that it is known to work. No
> more, no less.
>
> How has got this knowledge and how.
>
> > I talked with upstream about making a release, and we will do so
> together, but this will take some more weeks. There is quite some activity
> upstream right now. I understand you cannot wait any longer, so we will
> need to work without a release for now.
>
> Fully ACK.  Good to know that upstream is somehow convinced.
>
> Thanks for your work on this
>
>  Andreas.
>
> --
> http://fam-tille.de
>
> --
> To unsubscribe, send mail to 719624-unsubscr...@bugs.debian.org.
>

Bug#719624: Upgrading xrdp

2016-04-19 Thread Dominik George

Hi Andreas,

>How has got this knowledge and how.

We have been running this commit in production for almost a year. We started 
with what used to be HEAD for a very long time. It was bleeding edge whem we 
started. The specific commit used now is that state that was „stable“ for the 
repo for a long time, plus many patches upstream incorporated from us that make 
upstream DFSG-free.

Right now, there is almost daily activity in the repo so right now, there is no 
way of picking a specific new commit. So we stick to the one that used to be 
„stable“ in upstream's view.

-nik
-- 
PGP-Fingerprint: 3C9D 54A4 7575 C026 FB17 FD26 B79A 3C16 A0C4 F296

Dominik George · Mobil: +49-151-61623918

Teckids e.V. · FrOSCon e.V. · OpenRheinRuhr e.V.
Fellowship of the FSFE · Piratenpartei Deutschland
Opencaching Deutschland e.V. · Debian Contributor

LPIC-3 Linux Enterprise Professional (Security)

Bug#719624: Upgrading xrdp

Hi Dominik,

On Tue, Apr 19, 2016 at 11:49:38AM +0200, Dominik George wrote:
> >>  * It only contains debian/ now.
> >
> >Do you have any reason for this?
> 
> Yes, because that's what Mike originally asked for, unless I got him wrong.

I do not see any good reason for this kind of advise.  Mike, could you
please confirm that you are against keeping the upstream source inside
the archive.  IMHO this is against a very common gbp workflow and in
this specific case I think its definitely needed.

> >I'm missing the background knowledge to decide this so I'll leave this
> >to you.  I have no idea about the motivation to pick a specific commit
> >and not any other - it would be s helpful if upstream would tag
> >releases.
> 
> The only reason for the specific commit is that it is known to work. No more, 
> no less.

How has got this knowledge and how.

> I talked with upstream about making a release, and we will do so together, 
> but this will take some more weeks. There is quite some activity upstream 
> right now. I understand you cannot wait any longer, so we will need to work 
> without a release for now.

Fully ACK.  Good to know that upstream is somehow convinced.

Thanks for your work on this

 Andreas. 

-- 
http://fam-tille.de

Bug#719624: Upgrading xrdp

2016-04-19 Thread Dominik George

Hi,

>>  * It only contains debian/ now.
>
>Do you have any reason for this?

Yes, because that's what Mike originally asked for, unless I got him wrong.

>I'm missing the background knowledge to decide this so I'll leave this
>to you.  I have no idea about the motivation to pick a specific commit
>and not any other - it would be s helpful if upstream would tag
>releases.

The only reason for the specific commit is that it is known to work. No more, 
no less.

I talked with upstream about making a release, and we will do so together, but 
this will take some more weeks. There is quite some activity upstream right 
now. I understand you cannot wait any longer, so we will need to work without a 
release for now.

-nik
-- 
PGP-Fingerprint: 3C9D 54A4 7575 C026 FB17 FD26 B79A 3C16 A0C4 F296

Dominik George · Mobil: +49-151-61623918

Teckids e.V. · FrOSCon e.V. · OpenRheinRuhr e.V.
Fellowship of the FSFE · Piratenpartei Deutschland
Opencaching Deutschland e.V. · Debian Contributor

LPIC-3 Linux Enterprise Professional (Security)

Bug#719624: Upgrading xrdp

Hi Dominik,

thanks for working on xrdp and commiting to the repository.

On Mon, Apr 18, 2016 at 09:34:35PM +0200, Dominik George wrote:
>  * It only contains debian/ now.

Do you have any reason for this?

>  * get-orig-source fetches sources from GitHub, depending on package
>version and two variables inrules to determine the versions of
>librfxcodec and xorgxrdp. I decided to create a single
>source tarball out of the three since it needs to be manually
>crafted anyway.
>I am thinking about cloning the git repo instead and extracting
>the relevant commit, including submodules, from there.
>Do you think this would be better?

I'm missing the background knowledge to decide this so I'll leave this
to you.  I have no idea about the motivation to pick a specific commit
and not any other - it would be s helpful if upstream would tag
releases.

Please commit your created orig.tar.gz as pristine-tar via

 gbp import-orig --pristine-tar PATH_TO_TARBALL

This is necessary to enable us to work on the very same tarball.  If I
recreate via get-orig-source I will have a different MD5 sum of the
tarball (feel free to seek on debian-devel list for related
discussions).

>  * The packages builds with the proposed workflow.
> 
>  * Most of Mike's and Andreas' remarks were incorporated.
> 
> Maybe you could cast another glance at the package now?

I'll do once pristine-tar and source are available.

Thanks again for your work

   Andreas.

-- 
http://fam-tille.de

Bug#719624: Upgrading xrdp

2016-04-18 Thread Mike Gabriel


HI Nik,

theres for giving your time to this.

On  Mo 18 Apr 2016 21:34:35 CEST, Dominik George wrote:


Hi,

I updated the repo in collab-maint to the following state:

 * It only contains debian/ now.

 * get-orig-source fetches sources from GitHub, depending on package
   version and two variables inrules to determine the versions of
   librfxcodec and xorgxrdp. I decided to create a single
   source tarball out of the three since it needs to be manually
   crafted anyway.
   I am thinking about cloning the git repo instead and extracting
   the relevant commit, including submodules, from there.
   Do you think this would be better?

 * The packages builds with the proposed workflow.

 * Most of Mike's and Andreas' remarks were incorporated.

Maybe you could cast another glance at the package now?


@Andreas: this week, I am pretty much short of time. If you want to  
take a look, please go ahead.


I can take a look next week, probably.

Mike

--

DAS-NETZWERKTEAM
mike gabriel, herweg 7, 24357 fleckeby
fon: +49 (1520) 1976 148

GnuPG Key ID 0x25771B31
mail: mike.gabr...@das-netzwerkteam.de, http://das-netzwerkteam.de

freeBusy:
https://mail.das-netzwerkteam.de/mailxchange/kronolith/fb.php?u=m.gabriel%40das-netzwerkteam.de


pgp7FwGWmqr37.pgp
Description: Digitale PGP-Signatur

Bug#719624: Upgrading xrdp

2016-04-18 Thread Dominik George

Hi,

I updated the repo in collab-maint to the following state:

 * It only contains debian/ now.

 * get-orig-source fetches sources from GitHub, depending on package
   version and two variables inrules to determine the versions of
   librfxcodec and xorgxrdp. I decided to create a single
   source tarball out of the three since it needs to be manually
   crafted anyway.
   I am thinking about cloning the git repo instead and extracting
   the relevant commit, including submodules, from there.
   Do you think this would be better?

 * The packages builds with the proposed workflow.

 * Most of Mike's and Andreas' remarks were incorporated.

Maybe you could cast another glance at the package now?

Cheers,
Nik

-- 
PGP-Fingerprint: 3C9D 54A4 7575 C026 FB17  FD26 B79A 3C16 A0C4 F296

Dominik George · Mobil: +49-151-61623918

Teckids e.V. · FrOSCon e.V. · OpenRheinRuhr e.V.
Fellowship of the FSFE · Piratenpartei Deutschland
Opencaching Deutschland e.V. · Debian Contributor

LPIC-3 Linux Enterprise Professional (Security)

signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.

Bug#719624: Upgrading xrdp

2016-04-15 Thread Andreas Tille

Hi Dominik,

On Fri, Apr 15, 2016 at 12:45:47PM +0200, Dominik George wrote:
> Also, I kindly ask you to co-maintain the package after I got it finalised on 
> Monday.

Comaintenance is confirmed.

Thanks for the status upgrade

 Andreas.

-- 
http://fam-tille.de

Bug#719624: Upgrading xrdp

2016-04-15 Thread Dominik George

Hi Andreas,

> I'm afraid I'm getting on your nerves […]

No, you absolutely don't. You are actually right in every single point.

> Is it really that hard to take
> the repository where official xrdp was maintained and if nothing else
> helps
> 
> rsync -a --delete -v  
> 
> commit all changes in block and push to the existing repository. […]
> 
> […]
> 
> Sorry for the harsh words but the silence in the repository makes
> me really nervous.

I do understand your concerns. And yes, for an autistic person, a simple thing 
like that can really be that hard once enough bad emotions are connected to 
it, perfection is hard to get by any means and stepping back is not a real 
option either. I do not expect you to understand that, and I do not blame you 
if you don't.

So, what I do now is promise that I'l get that done by Monday, 18th Aptil, 20 
o;clock CEST. If I don't manage to get it done by then, I ask you to take the 
job from me and do whatever you deem right.

Also, I kindly ask you to co-maintain the package after I got it finalised on 
Monday.

Kind regards,
Nik

-- 
PGP-Fingerprint: 3C9D 54A4 7575 C026 FB17  FD26 B79A 3C16 A0C4 F296

Dominik George · Mobil: +49-151-61623918

Teckids e.V. · FrOSCon e.V. · OpenRheinRuhr e.V.
Fellowship of the FSFE · Piratenpartei Deutschland
Opencaching Deutschland e.V. · Debian Contributor

LPIC-3 Linux Enterprise Professional (Security)

Bug#719624: Upgrading xrdp

2016-04-13 Thread Andreas Tille

Hi Dominik,

I'm afraid I'm getting on your nerves but we are chatting now way to
long how to to get xrdp finalised.  I asked you several times how I
could help and there is no response.  Is it really that hard to take
the repository where official xrdp was maintained and if nothing else
helps

rsync -a --delete -v  

commit all changes in block and push to the existing repository.  The
history of the devlopment is not worth anything if the development
happens behind closed doors and leads to nothing visible after > 1
month.

Sorry for the harsh words but the silence in the repository makes
me really nervous.

Kind regards

  Andreas.

On Fri, Apr 01, 2016 at 06:11:29PM +0200, Andreas Tille wrote:
> On Fri, Apr 01, 2016 at 01:40:40PM +, Mike Gabriel wrote:
> > 
> > I think that all previous uploads to Debian should be in the repo. Plus your
> > changes.
> 
> +1
>  
> Kind regards
> 
>   Andreas.
> 
> -- 
> http://fam-tille.de
> 
> 

-- 
http://fam-tille.de

Bug#719624: Upgrading xrdp

2016-04-01 Thread Andreas Tille

On Fri, Apr 01, 2016 at 01:40:40PM +, Mike Gabriel wrote:
> 
> I think that all previous uploads to Debian should be in the repo. Plus your
> changes.

+1
 
Kind regards

  Andreas.

-- 
http://fam-tille.de

Bug#719624: Upgrading xrdp

2016-04-01 Thread Mike Gabriel

Hi Nik,

On Fr 01 Apr 2016 14:47:52 CEST, Dominik George wrote:

Hi,

> Yes, I know that. However, the only problem to be solved is merging the
> two repositories, and having some remotes dangling around doing so does
> not make it easier.
If you ask me you should not put too much effort into this merge. The
main thing is that it somehow can be understand for an interested reader
how you developed from one released version to another. I do not think
that a two weeks delay of an upload is a sensible price here.

So, what I'd like to do is archive the old repository somewhere and
start over

with a new repository, with the layout we agreed on, starting at the current,
new version of the package.

What does Mike think of that?

-nik

I fully agree with Andreas (I guess, you quoted him, right?).

I think that all previous uploads to Debian should be in the repo.
Plus your changes.

If you just copy your changes on top and do a single bulk commit or if
you want to start at some earlier place in history and then import
some of your and Torsten patches separately on top of that, I don't
mind.

Thanks for giving your time to this!
Mike
--

DAS-NETZWERKTEAM
mike gabriel, herweg 7, 24357 fleckeby
fon: +49 (1520) 1976 148

GnuPG Key ID 0x25771B31
mail: mike.gabr...@das-netzwerkteam.de, http://das-netzwerkteam.de

freeBusy:
https://mail.das-netzwerkteam.de/mailxchange/kronolith/fb.php?u=m.gabriel%40das-netzwerkteam.de

pgpJCgjUkDGtX.pgp
Description: Digitale PGP-Signatur

Bug#719624: Upgrading xrdp

2016-04-01 Thread Dominik George

Hi,

> > Yes, I know that. However, the only problem to be solved is merging the
> > two repositories, and having some remotes dangling around doing so does
> > not make it easier.
> If you ask me you should not put too much effort into this merge.  The
> main thing is that it somehow can be understand for an interested reader
> how you developed from one released version to another.  I do not think
> that a two weeks delay of an upload is a sensible price here.

So, what I'd like to do is archive the old repository somewhere and start over 
with a new repository, with the layout we agreed on, starting at the current, 
new version of the package.

What does Mike think of that?

-nik

-- 
PGP-Fingerprint: 3C9D 54A4 7575 C026 FB17  FD26 B79A 3C16 A0C4 F296

Dominik George · Mobil: +49-151-61623918

Teckids e.V. · FrOSCon e.V. · OpenRheinRuhr e.V.
Fellowship of the FSFE · Piratenpartei Deutschland
Opencaching Deutschland e.V. · Debian Contributor

LPIC-3 Linux Enterprise Professional (Security)

Bug#719624: Upgrading xrdp

2016-03-31 Thread Andreas Tille

On Tue, Mar 15, 2016 at 10:03:13PM +0100, Dominik George wrote:
> Hi,
> 
> >sorry for nagging constantly but you expected to be done until middle
> >of
> >last week.
> 
> No. I said I'd be done until middle of *this* week, and I actually got 
> publishing the stuff on my todo list for tomorrow.

??
 
> >Could you please, pretty please be more transparent by
> >commiting your work to some public place.  It does not help at all if
> >you silently work on problems others could help with.
> 
> Yes, I know that. However, the only problem to be solved is merging the two 
> repositories, and having some remotes dangling around doing so does not make 
> it easier.

If you ask me you should not put too much effort into this merge.  The
main thing is that it somehow can be understand for an interested reader
how you developed from one released version to another.  I do not think
that a two weeks delay of an upload is a sensible price here.

Kind regards

   Andreas.

-- 
http://fam-tille.de

Bug#719624: Upgrading xrdp

2016-03-20 Thread Andreas Tille

Hi Dominik,

On Thu, Mar 17, 2016 at 12:47:33PM +0100, Dominik George wrote:
> Hi,
> 
> for some inobvious reason, I cannot push to the repo in collab-maint…

An alternative strategy would be to simply copy it over on
git.debian.org to debian-edu space and push there.

Thanks for your work on xrdp

   Andreas.

-- 
http://fam-tille.de

Bug#719624: Upgrading xrdp

2016-03-19 Thread Dominik George

>An alternative strategy would be to simply copy it over on
>git.debian.org to debian-edu space and push there.

The issue is that I messed up some commits in the history.

I think I will do a manual merge of the changes instead…

-nik
-- 
PGP-Fingerprint: 3C9D 54A4 7575 C026 FB17 FD26 B79A 3C16 A0C4 F296

Dominik George · Mobil: +49-151-61623918

Teckids e.V. · FrOSCon e.V. · OpenRheinRuhr e.V.
Fellowship of the FSFE · Piratenpartei Deutschland
Opencaching Deutschland e.V. · Debian Contributor

LPIC-3 Linux Enterprise Professional (Security)

Bug#719624: Upgrading xrdp

2016-03-19 Thread Dominik George

Hi,

for some inobvious reason, I cannot push to the repo in collab-maint…

But working on it.

-nik

-- 
PGP-Fingerprint: 3C9D 54A4 7575 C026 FB17  FD26 B79A 3C16 A0C4 F296

Dominik George · Mobil: +49-151-61623918

Teckids e.V. · FrOSCon e.V. · OpenRheinRuhr e.V.
Fellowship of the FSFE · Piratenpartei Deutschland
Opencaching Deutschland e.V. · Debian Contributor

LPIC-3 Linux Enterprise Professional (Security)

Bug#719624: Upgrading xrdp

2016-03-15 Thread Dominik George

Hi,

>sorry for nagging constantly but you expected to be done until middle
>of
>last week.

No. I said I'd be done until middle of *this* week, and I actually got 
publishing the stuff on my todo list for tomorrow.

>Could you please, pretty please be more transparent by
>commiting your work to some public place.  It does not help at all if
>you silently work on problems others could help with.

Yes, I know that. However, the only problem to be solved is merging the two 
repositories, and having some remotes dangling around doing so does not make it 
easier.

-nik
-- 
PGP-Fingerprint: 3C9D 54A4 7575 C026 FB17 FD26 B79A 3C16 A0C4 F296

Dominik George · Mobil: +49-151-61623918

Teckids e.V. · FrOSCon e.V. · OpenRheinRuhr e.V.
Fellowship of the FSFE · Piratenpartei Deutschland
Opencaching Deutschland e.V. · Debian Contributor

LPIC-3 Linux Enterprise Professional (Security)

Bug#719624: Upgrading xrdp

2016-03-15 Thread Andreas Tille

Hi again Dominik,

sorry for nagging constantly but you expected to be done until middle of
last week.  Could you please, pretty please be more transparent by
commiting your work to some public place.  It does not help at all if
you silently work on problems others could help with.

Thanks

  Andreas.

On Thu, Mar 10, 2016 at 01:06:25PM +0100, Andreas Tille wrote:
> On Tue, Mar 08, 2016 at 11:21:32PM +0100, Dominik George wrote:
> > 
> > In that case, please let us finalise the work ;). I expect it to be done 
> > until 
> > middle of the week.
> 
> Just for my understanding: To what repository are you pushing
> intermediate changes to follow your steps? 
> 
> Kind regards and thanks for working on this
> 
> Andreas.
> 
> -- 
> http://fam-tille.de
> 
> 

-- 
http://fam-tille.de

Bug#719624: Upgrading xrdp

2016-03-10 Thread Andreas Tille

On Tue, Mar 08, 2016 at 11:21:32PM +0100, Dominik George wrote:
> 
> In that case, please let us finalise the work ;). I expect it to be done 
> until 
> middle of the week.

Just for my understanding: To what repository are you pushing
intermediate changes to follow your steps? 

Kind regards and thanks for working on this

Andreas.

-- 
http://fam-tille.de

Bug#719624: Upgrading xrdp

On Tue, Mar 08, 2016 at 11:21:32PM +0100, Dominik George wrote:
> In that case, please let us finalise the work ;). I expect it to be done 
> until 
> middle of the week.

Sounds good.  My favourite way to do this would be to clone

   https://anonscm.debian.org/git/collab-maint/xrdp.git

to the new location

   https://anonscm.debian.org/git/debian-edu/pkg-team/xrdp.git

and insert the changes for 0.9.0~git20150902-1 there.  If you want help
from my side please make sure to commit pristine-tar to ensure that we
are working on the same code base.

Kind regards

Andreas.

-- 
http://fam-tille.de

Bug#719624: Upgrading xrdp

2016-03-08 Thread Dominik George

Hi,

> 
> On Tue, Mar 08, 2016 at 06:59:32PM +0100, Dominik George wrote:
> > most of your concerns are being addressed already (restoring history and
> > such).
> The current master branch of the repository you named[1] starts with
> 
> 
> xrdp (0.9.0~git20150318-1~alpha1) teckids; urgency=medium
> 
>   * New upstream git snapshot
>   * Document legal issues at https://github.com/neutrinolabs/xrdp/issues/232
> 
>  -- Thorsten Glaser   Wed, 18 Mar 2015 21:22:35
> +0100
> 
> 
> which contradicts your statement.

No, it doesn't. You simply need a grammar book - I said your concerns „are 
being addressed“, not „have already been addressed“.

I have a list of tasks to do on the package, which includes both your issues 1 
and 1, so…

> I also do not like that you just drop
> my concerns 1. and 2. which are not dealt with - otherwise I would not
> have asked.

…I did not drop anything.

> 
> > Please do not make it more difficult, an experienced DD (Mike Gabriel) is
> >working with us.
> I also do not like this "proof by authority" attitude.  I would not
> claim that I'm more right since I'm a longer experienced DD than Mike.

Your attitude of simply casting criticism in our direction is not helpful 
either. I am currently trying to address all the issues Mike had when we asked 
him to sponsor, which almost match yours 1:1.

> 
> > >  3. Why do you plan
> > >  
> > >  a) a non-official (random?) Git commit rather than a release?
> > 
> > Because there is no current release. Upstream does not make releases
> > anymore. The picked commit is not random. It is verified to work and
> > includes a lot of stuff we negotiated with upstream (license issues,
> > patches from Debian, etc.). It's the best we could get, and it works.
> That's nice to know and I'd love to have something well tested.  My only
> interest is to have some reliably working xrdp quickly.

In that case, please let us finalise the work ;). I expect it to be done until 
middle of the week.

> 
> > >  b) uploading to experimental rather than unstable?
> > 
> > Because the package is a major change (e.g. switching from x11vnc to
> > x11rdp by default).
> That's not a good reason for choosing experimental per se.  If there are
> no depnedencies to adapt to undergo a transition a well tested package
> can perfectly go to unstable.  Experimental is close to not tested and
> if you want some relevant number of users besides your closed circle you
> should push to unstable soon.  Otherwise you might get it in short before
> the freeze which might incover problems to late.

OK, thanks for the hint!

> 
> I insist that the parallel development of a totally separate package is
> very unfortunate,

I agree. Looking at the changelog, you might find that I did not decide or do 
that, but that I took over the new package and am now „cleaning up“.

> has caused duplicated work for me since it was not
> announced.

Well, actually, I do not think this is entirely my fault. See, there was an 
ITA, and that should have made you ask before doing any work. You knew that I 
was working on it, so you could have asked for a status before doing separate 
work.

That said, it was *you* who decided to work on it, when in fact there was a 
clear information that someone else is doing it right now.

> I realised that you basically ignored history, which is
> simply wrong.

Yes, it is, and I know it. It was not my decision, and after Mike raised his 
concerns about it as well, I started rebasing the work on the old repository. 
But it takes some time. Please let me finish it.

> I also have further concerns:
> […]

After fixing the issues Mike listed, I will happily come back to you to find 
out if there is anything else that could be improved.

Cheers,
Nik

-- 
PGP-Fingerprint: 3C9D 54A4 7575 C026 FB17  FD26 B79A 3C16 A0C4 F296

Dominik George · Mobil: +49-151-61623918

Teckids e.V. · FrOSCon e.V. · OpenRheinRuhr e.V.
Fellowship of the FSFE · Piratenpartei Deutschland
Opencaching Deutschland e.V. · Debian Contributor

LPIC-3 Linux Enterprise Professional (Security)

Bug#719624: Upgrading xrdp

Hi,

On Tue, Mar 08, 2016 at 06:59:32PM +0100, Dominik George wrote:
> most of your concerns are being addressed already (restoring history and 
> such).

The current master branch of the repository you named[1] starts with

xrdp (0.9.0~git20150318-1~alpha1) teckids; urgency=medium

  * New upstream git snapshot
  * Document legal issues at https://github.com/neutrinolabs/xrdp/issues/232

 -- Thorsten Glaser   Wed, 18 Mar 2015 21:22:35 
+0100

which contradicts your statement.  I also do not like that you just drop
my concerns 1. and 2. which are not dealt with - otherwise I would not
have asked.

> Please do not make it more difficult, an experienced DD (Mike Gabriel) is 
>working with us.

I also do not like this "proof by authority" attitude.  I would not
claim that I'm more right since I'm a longer experienced DD than Mike.

> >  3. Why do you plan
> >  a) a non-official (random?) Git commit rather than a release?
> 
> Because there is no current release. Upstream does not make releases anymore. 
> The picked commit is not random. It is verified to work and includes a lot of 
> stuff we negotiated with upstream (license issues, patches from Debian, 
> etc.). It's the best we could get, and it works.

That's nice to know and I'd love to have something well tested.  My only
interest is to have some reliably working xrdp quickly.

> >  b) uploading to experimental rather than unstable?
> 
> Because the package is a major change (e.g. switching from x11vnc to x11rdp 
> by default).

That's not a good reason for choosing experimental per se.  If there are
no depnedencies to adapt to undergo a transition a well tested package
can perfectly go to unstable.  Experimental is close to not tested and
if you want some relevant number of users besides your closed circle you
should push to unstable soon.  Otherwise you might get it in short before
the freeze which might incover problems to late.

I insist that the parallel development of a totally separate package is
very unfortunate, has caused duplicated work for me since it was not
announced.  I realised that you basically ignored history, which is
simply wrong.

I also notice that the packaging in alioth Git[1] mentiones different
Vcs-* URLs which is broken but might be the reason that we are talking
possibly about different things.  Please explain the differences between
your statements and the code in alioth or push the latest state to
alioth.

I also have further concerns:

  4. Please use DEP3 headers

  5. Standards Version should be 3.9.7

  6. Please close bugs in BTS if any are closed.

Kind regards

   Andreas.

[1] 
https://alioth.debian.org/plugins/scmgit/cgi-bin/gitweb.cgi?p=debian-edu/pkg-team/xrdp.git;a=summary

-- 
http://fam-tille.de

Bug#719624: Upgrading xrdp

2016-03-08 Thread Dominik George

Hi,

most of your concerns are being addressed already (restoring history and such). 
Please do not make it more difficult, an experienced DD (Mike Gabriel) is 
working with us.

>  3. Why do you plan
>  a) a non-official (random?) Git commit rather than a release?

Because there is no current release. Upstream does not make releases anymore. 
The picked commit is not random. It is verified to work and includes a lot of 
stuff we negotiated with upstream (license issues, patches from Debian, etc.). 
It's the best we could get, and it works.

>  b) uploading to experimental rather than unstable?

Because the package is a major change (e.g. switching from x11vnc to x11rdp by 
default).

-nik
-- 
PGP-Fingerprint: 3C9D 54A4 7575 C026 FB17 FD26 B79A 3C16 A0C4 F296

Dominik George · Mobil: +49-151-61623918

Teckids e.V. · FrOSCon e.V. · OpenRheinRuhr e.V.
Fellowship of the FSFE · Piratenpartei Deutschland
Opencaching Deutschland e.V. · Debian Contributor

LPIC-3 Linux Enterprise Professional (Security)

Bug#719624: Upgrading xrdp

[Setting reply-to Debian-Edu]

On Tue, Mar 08, 2016 at 06:29:12PM +0100, Dominik George wrote:
> >If anybody of the people responding tp the ITA bug like to become the
> >main maintainer of the package I'd be more than happy to sponsor the
> >package.  As far as the situation is now I'll upload my current work in
> >Git tomorrow.
> 
> The current version is here because the package is being adopted by the 
> Debian Edu team:
> 
> https://alioth.debian.org/plugins/scmgit/cgi-bin/gitweb.cgi?p=debian-edu/pkg-team/xrdp.git;a=summary
> 
> The package is pending upload to experimental.
> 
> If you have anything special about your packaging, feel free to share it so 
> we can incorporate it.

Is there any point in droping the history from debian/changelog and
feeding it with non-Debian releases instead?  I'm perfectly happy with
moving the package to Debian Edu. However, I have some concerns:

  0. The fact that the development of the package happened silently
 and in parallel to an existing Debian package.

  1. There is no defined way to get the upstream source - there is just
  # We don’t provide a get-orig-source target because submodules
 in debian/rules.
 I would really prefer the gbp layout featuring an upstream and a
 pristine-tar branch

  2. You should *definitely* restore the old changelog of xrdp and
 assemble all changes between the current released package (0.6.1-2)
 to your release candidate.

  3. Why do you plan
  a) a non-official (random?) Git commit rather than a release?
  b) uploading to experimental rather than unstable?

Kind regards

   Andreas.

-- 
http://fam-tille.de

Bug#719624: Upgrading xrdp

2016-03-08 Thread Dominik George

Hi,

>> Yes, no problem. The package is up to adoption but there is already
>an
>> ITA. See #719624. However, I didn't get more news since January. But
>I
>> didn't try to reach out.
>
>If anybody of the people responding tp the ITA bug like to become the
>main maintainer of the package I'd be more than happy to sponsor the
>package.  As far as the situation is now I'll upload my current work in
>Git tomorrow.

The current version is here because the package is being adopted by the Debian 
Edu team:

https://alioth.debian.org/plugins/scmgit/cgi-bin/gitweb.cgi?p=debian-edu/pkg-team/xrdp.git;a=summary

The package is pending upload to experimental.

If you have anything special about your packaging, feel free to share it so we 
can incorporate it.

Cheers,
Nik
-- 
PGP-Fingerprint: 3C9D 54A4 7575 C026 FB17 FD26 B79A 3C16 A0C4 F296

Dominik George · Mobil: +49-151-61623918

Teckids e.V. · FrOSCon e.V. · OpenRheinRuhr e.V.
Fellowship of the FSFE · Piratenpartei Deutschland
Opencaching Deutschland e.V. · Debian Contributor

LPIC-3 Linux Enterprise Professional (Security)

Bug#719624: Upgrading xrdp