Re: Salsa CI news
On Saturday, 8 February 2020 1:49:20 PM AEDT Paul Wise wrote: > There is one attribute of how Debian does things that clashes with > being able to do this; service maintainers need to be able to update > code on a different schedule to Debian stable and even backports > time-frames. When service maintainers build their services from upstream repositories there is no concern for "stable" release schedule. They could use packages from "testing" or "unstable", especially those like Golang ones that almost always safe to install even to stable systems due to their statically linked nature and few run-time dependencies. The problem is rather curious one. What would the Debian be without packages? Would there be anything left? When the whole project is largely about good packaging as a form of delivery of free software with added value in regards to integration, build-ability, consistency, respect to FHS and DFSG, continuous testing, etc., as a project we are projecting the idea that deploying and maintaining services installed from the package repository is good. Certainly sometimes it is much easier to deploy and upgrade software when it is installed from the official packages. But when service maintainers refuse to use packaged software for no good reason the message is not clear. Is package maintainer does not do a good enough job or is the whole concept is wrong? It is like we are saying, here, use the packages we have prepared for you but mind that they are not good enough for us (ourselves) to use... In case of Gitlab I recognise that Salsa could not be maintained from the official packages. They are too fragile, often uninstallable even in "unstable" and depend on unofficial "fasttrack" repository. There are too many dependencies and things get broken far to often in too many places. In theory Gitlab could be in a better shape with larger team, but in the current situation I see why Salsa operates from vendor container image and it is reasonable. But case of Gitlab-Runner is different. The packaged version is mature enough. It is trivial to incorporate it into container image. I've been running it in production for 3.5 years ever since I've packaged it. It appears to me that Salsa admins don't use packaged Gitlab-Runner simply because they don't want to, and I don't understand why. I think ideally service maintainers should be package co-maintainers. But when there is a large burden to maintain either (the service and the package), I understand how people might focus just on one thing. But again, if everything we do here is about providing packaged software, when it is ever the right thing not to use our own packages? Certainly we don't trust upstream more than our fellow developers, right? -- All the best, Dmitry Smirnov. --- If liberty means anything at all, it means the right to tell people what they do not want to hear. -- George Orwell signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
Re: call for ftpmaster's transparency
On Monday, 10 February 2020 1:01:05 PM AEDT Sean Whitton wrote: > AIUI, the reason REJECT comments aren't public is because it might > sometimes make people feel embarassed. Then many reviews of a packaging work that is done by mentors would be embarrassing but that's OK because everybody have a chance to learn from those reviews. (Only those who don't do anything are never embarrassed). > ITPs are great for avoiding duplicated effort in most cases. However, > there are cases in which it is possible for someone to know pretty much > for sure that there is no chance of any duplicated effort. In such > cases ITPs are busywork, which is demotivating to volunteers. No. ITPs are opportunities to team up with others, not merely for de- duplication. > For example, if I break out some mature code from a project and make its > first upstream release as an independent library, and then I want > immediately to upload it to NEW so that the next release of the project > it was broken out from can depend on the new library, there is no reason > to file an ITP. Since I am the upstream author and the code has only > just been released, I can be confident no-one else is going to try to > package it. That might be a valid situation but nevertheless how much effort it is to file an ITP?? Not much even if filing new ITP is not mandated. But when ITP is there, then it could be referred to as "blocked by" or "blocking" bug, it can have "affects" relationships with other packages, etc. Also you never know how long your package will stay in the NEW queue and during this time lack of ITP could affect developers priorities. > Another example is the Haskell team. Due to the nature of the language, > information on newly packaged libraries has to be committed to two > different git repos, and so everyone working on Haskell in Debian is > working from those two repos. So again, no real danger of duplicated > effort. I've heard something similar about Rust team. Fair enough, maybe there are some legitimate cases when ITPs could be safely avoided. Though it is nice to have an ITP anyway as a record of what is being introduced -- for example when package is rejected, ITP could capture discussion and reason for rejection, which is always useful to have for posterity. -- Best wishes, Dmitry Smirnov. --- Richard Nixon got kicked out of Washington for tapping one hotel suite. Today we're tapping every American citizen in the country, and no one has been put on trial for it or even investigated. We don't even have an inquiry into it. -- Edward Snowden signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
Re: call for ftpmaster's transparency
On Sunday, 9 February 2020 9:04:25 PM AEDT Michael Lustfield wrote: > This is an understandable perspective, but secrecy probably isn't the best > word. Probably. If I had a better linguistic faculties then I could have find a better word. But I have had to use what I was available... > I personally think this sounds like a fantastic (and not very difficult) > idea. Thank you. > Where do you propose the bug mail be sent for NEW/binNEW packages without > an ITP? Same channels as usual. How can one comment to ITP that does not exist? > I suspect when you say, "member of ftp-masters team," what you mean is > "FTP-Masters Trainee." Correct. > I agree that it could be valuable to see comments; however, they're almost > always going to be from Trainees. Since we're not technically part of the > team, it's important that we don't speak on behalf of the team. Publishing > Trainee comments would effectively be doing that. That's perfectly fine. I don't recall a single case when a package review was not appreciated. A review or even a question asked on ITP can be useful to correct a problem or to provide more background. Whether ITP feedback if provided by Trainee or not, it could be useful anyway. > I would personally *LOVE* to see ITPs be a requirement for *ALL* new > packages. Making it a requirement and expecting ftp-masters to ignore any > upload until the ITP has existed for at least X days would be absolutely > fantastic. It would fix some redundant library uploads (see > golang/nodejs/etc.) and it would provide a mandatory level of review by > the wider community. I'm sure having it as a good practice would be enough without mandating a strong requirement to always have an ITP. There are might be legitimate cases to not file an ITP although I can think of only one such case when a source package is re-named... > Back when I tried to get gitea packaged for main, I had a number of ITPs > commented/closed mentioning the alternate library name or a reason it can't > be packaged. Makes sense. > > I'd like Debian project leader to engage in the matter of improving > > transparency of ftp-masters team operations and procedures. > > This feels a lot like starting a GR and not allowing appropriate > discussion. It's heavy-handed, isn't going to get anywhere, and is going > to hurt feelings. Project leader's duty is to facilitate communication. It is not wrong to at least make him aware of the problem. > > I want to encourage a public discussion regarding opening of the > > ftp-master mail list to the public. Currently reasons for unjustified > > secrecy of ftp- master processes is not explained... > > It's often said that emotions don't play well with productive discussions. > Adding phrases such as "where it belong", using "secrecy" over "privacy", > calling it "unjustified", and immediately jumping to demands of the DPL are > accusatory and inflammatory, and will likely just get you ignored or start > an unproductive flame war. It is my general observation that bug reporters (or those who raise concerns on mail lists) naturally tend to be perceived over-emotionally. That's understandable because they are either affected by the issue or concerned enough to report it. And others probably take it less seriously or they would have reported it themselves... Once again, "do not shoot the pianist" sort of speak... I've expressed the issue the best I could. > Why do reviews take so long? I'm not concerned about that, although it would be great to improve processing time. IMHO the bigger problem is that queue processing is unpredictable -- some packages, sometimes unimportant ones are processed very fast while others (including those that block some bug fixes) can stay in the queue for a very long time. It is very difficult to communicate urgency of a new package upload with ftpmasters. I'd probably use severity of pending ITP bug but I'm not sure if that would be effective or even the right thing to do... > - The team is tiny IMHO this is a very serious issue. There are too few ftp-masters, they are doing too much work, most certainly not delegating enough and not growing the team... > - Much of the team seems very burned out No wonder given the weight of responsibilities. I'm sure we are all much appreciate their hard work... -- Regards, Dmitry Smirnov. --- We occasionally stumble over the truth but most of us pick ourselves up and hurry off as if nothing had happened. -- Winston Churchill signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
Re: call for ftpmaster's transparency
On Sun, Feb 09, 2020 at 07:01:05PM -0700, Sean Whitton wrote:
> One key problem with the current workflow is that it makes it very
> difficult to avoid reviewing identical files more than once. That would
> be a big improvement.
(I was just talking with Michael about this several minutes ago.)
Just leaking a part of my WIP work.
My core data structure looks like this
{path: [hash, stamp, username, status, annotation]}
The "hash " field is a salted hash, calculated like this
hash(data=read(path), salt=read(neighbor_license()))
This data structure is a fine-grained (per-path level) "accept/reject"
record. Each path is a node. The "status" of a tree can be
automatically computed form its decendant nodes.
When a package enters NEW again, files with matching hashes will
automatically reuse the last status assigned by human user, where status
= either "accept" or "reject".
There are still many other aspects from which I can reduce time
consumption for human and improve efficiency.
Re: call for ftpmaster's transparency
Hello, On Sun 09 Feb 2020 at 04:04AM -06, Michael Lustfield wrote: >> To make matters worse ftp-masters rarely leave their comments in ITP >> issues. As I've recently learned that have profound effect on processing of >> new packages. > > I personally think this sounds like a fantastic (and not very difficult) idea. AIUI, the reason REJECT comments aren't public is because it might sometimes make people feel embarassed. > I would personally *LOVE* to see ITPs be a requirement for *ALL* new packages. > Making it a requirement and expecting ftp-masters to ignore any upload until > the ITP has existed for at least X days would be absolutely fantastic. It > would > fix some redundant library uploads (see golang/nodejs/etc.) and it would > provide a mandatory level of review by the wider community. ITPs are great for avoiding duplicated effort in most cases. However, there are cases in which it is possible for someone to know pretty much for sure that there is no chance of any duplicated effort. In such cases ITPs are busywork, which is demotivating to volunteers. For example, if I break out some mature code from a project and make its first upstream release as an independent library, and then I want immediately to upload it to NEW so that the next release of the project it was broken out from can depend on the new library, there is no reason to file an ITP. Since I am the upstream author and the code has only just been released, I can be confident no-one else is going to try to package it. Another example is the Haskell team. Due to the nature of the language, information on newly packaged libraries has to be committed to two different git repos, and so everyone working on Haskell in Debian is working from those two repos. So again, no real danger of duplicated effort. > Why do reviews take so long? > - The team is tiny > - Much of the team seems very burned out > - The ones that are active tend to stick to source or "unloved" tasks > - There are some very large and/or messy packages that need review > - There are a lot of redundant tasks and frequently-made mistakes > + A little more automation could help that > - (my opinion) The tools are archaic, cumbersome, and inefficient > + Fixing this would be a very (non-technically) difficult task > + An idea I have would help to bring transparency to the process... > ^ it's missing an interest requirement :( One key problem with the current workflow is that it makes it very difficult to avoid reviewing identical files more than once. That would be a big improvement. -- Sean Whitton signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Re: Best practices for Debian developers who are also upstreams?
Hello, On Sun 09 Feb 2020 at 10:57PM +02, Otto Kekäläinen wrote: > Most interesting was perhaps Seans git-remote-gcrypt. You even have a > rpm spec file included which helps illustrate this is a true upstream > and not a fully native Debian package. > > There does not seem to be any automation around release numbering — > currently the repo tags, debian/changelog and redhat spec file all > bumped manually and independently. > https://github.com/spwhitton/git-remote-gcrypt/commit/069f6ea33149fbaa8bd83423b7a7b591fcfed43b Indeed. If the package was more active I would implement some script which would bump all the versions, which could be run right after releasing. > - Build .deb directly at upstream for every upstream commit: allow > upstream developers to notice if they break Debian packaging to the > level that it stops building. Upstream PRs (or MRs) should not be > accepted if they make changes without considering if they break .deb > (or .rpm if that is also included in the upstream repository). > Effectively this requires that upstream git master branch has a > debian/ directory. > > - Since there will be a debian/ directory, upstream might as well run > full Debian QA on every commit. This will help detect if upstream > developes make grave mistakes, like try to run curl/git fetches > duringthe build stage, introduce library symbols in a wrong way or > embed in the build something that stops from being a reproducible > build anymore. Lintian even complains about spelling mistakes. Such QA > items are not Debian specific – all code everywhere should be without > spelling mistakes, all programs should stay reproducible if they now > are so etc. Right. My sbuild-prerelease alias could be used in your CI to do this. -- Sean Whitton signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Re: Best practices for Debian developers who are also upstreams?
On 2/8/20 7:57 PM, Simon Richter wrote: > In my experience, it was often a good idea to separate my upstream and > Debian hats. +1 My current situation is that I'm a Debian packager who has then over time become more involved in upstream and eventually ended up with a commit bit. On a different package, I'm in the process of taking over packaging for something where I am already an upstream developer (or perhaps should say "was", as I haven't been active upstream in some time, though that may change here). That sounds like it may be different than your situation, but I hope I can still offer some useful comments. > At the same time, Debian packages have a well-defined installation > procedure, so it is often possible to build a quick fix for a bug that > will give users a working package, but where the patch is not suitable > for upstream inclusion, like changing an init script or unit file. +1. In such a case, you can clean that up into a more general solution for upstream and later drop the Debian patch. I've had that exact thing happen. >> - have debian/ in upstream repository, and a CI that does the bulk of >> Debian QA on every upstream commit and immediately gives feedback to >> upstream devs that "break" something from Debian QA point of view I'm in the process of packaging something where upstream (which is not me) puts their debian directory (for CI purposes) as packaging/debian. That allows them to do real Debian packaging for CI, and update that as necessary, but keeps it out of the way of the real "debian" directory. You might consider that option. Upstream's CI presumably has to move/copy/link ./packaging/debian to ./debian before kicking off the Debian build, but that's just one extra step. >> - bonus: import upstream releases as git operations Do this either way! :) In the packages I maintain, my debian/README.source says: The `master` branch is upstream's `master` branch. ... The `upstream/latest` branch contains the unpacked contents of the orig tarball. It is branched off the `master` branch, so the delta from `master` (at the branch point) to `upstream/latest` contains generated files that exist in the tarball but not in the upstream repository. That said, I prefer to keep separate git checkouts for the package and upstream to avoid the potential for accidents like pushing upstream pull request branches to Debian Salsa or, far more likely, accidentally pushing the current master to Debian Salsa. > Maintaining debian/changelog inside a version control system is a bit of > a category error, because it is a form of version control system log, I'm a big fan of using git-buildpackage and `gbp dch`. My current workflow (somewhat "copied" from e.g. lintian) is that debian/changelog contains a stub like this until it is time to tag a Debian package release: ntpsec (1.1.8+dfsg1-4+git) UNRELEASED; urgency=medium * UNRELEASED -- Richard Laager Sat, 11 Jan 2020 22:49:28 -0600 Note that it is critical that the version in Salsa NOT be the same as the version in the archive if you are using Salsa CI to test changes. That's why the +git is added. If they are the same, when the CI code tries to install the package, you'll have problems because of the conflicting version numbers. -- Richard signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Re: Best practices for Debian developers who are also upstreams?
Hello! Currently the project where I am closest to this goal is in rdiff-backup. The upstream debian/ is almost 1:1 to the downstream debian/. I've made a dh_gencontrol override to ensure the upstream CI always builds binaries with the correct version number inherited from a git tag in upstream: https://github.com/rdiff-backup/rdiff-backup/blob/master/debian/rules What remains is to decide what to do to the debian/changelog. The version there still leaks the source package version number that ends up in *.changes and *.dsc.. Otherwise it is rolling pretty well. The upstream .travis-ci.yml builds the .eb just like Debian will eventually do (apart from some version and changelog differences) and all bugs I encounter in Debian or elsewhere can be fixed directly on upstream for everybody's benefit. My work on the quality of the software is directly beneficial at upstream and "globally" and not just for Debian. I still have a separate Debian repo on salsa.debian.org but in future I think I'll have a debian/master branch directly in upstream repository and configure to git-buildpackage the upstream branch as 'master'. One of the best inspirations for this was https://vincent.bernat.ch/en/blog/2019-pragmatic-debian-packaging and examples at https://github.com/vincentbernat/pragmatic-debian-packages/tree/master but I am still looking to optimize the process as a whole. I don't feel there is any problem with "two hats". Pretty much everything the Debian policy states about software quality applies universally to any open source project. The things that are very Debian specific will only be expressed in code under debian/ and not affect other distros. If this works out well I'll expand to become upstream in all projects I maintain in Debian if the upstreams trust me enough to give write access. The closer a maintainer is to the upstream, the better everything will be I reason. - Otto
Re: Best practices for Debian developers who are also upstreams?
Hello! Thanks for all the examples (LXQt [where I looked at the sources of lxqt-panel], git-remote-gcrypt, nbd, review, glibc). Most interesting was perhaps Seans git-remote-gcrypt. You even have a rpm spec file included which helps illustrate this is a true upstream and not a fully native Debian package. There does not seem to be any automation around release numbering — currently the repo tags, debian/changelog and redhat spec file all bumped manually and independently. https://github.com/spwhitton/git-remote-gcrypt/commit/069f6ea33149fbaa8bd83423b7a7b591fcfed43b In the other cases I did not see a real feedback loop where upstream developers would be exposed to Debian policy requirements or Debian QA. Seems many misunderstood my list of goals. My emphasis is not on the git branch layout or patch handling. So let me rephrase my goals from a quality assurance perspective: - Build .deb directly at upstream for every upstream commit: allow upstream developers to notice if they break Debian packaging to the level that it stops building. Upstream PRs (or MRs) should not be accepted if they make changes without considering if they break .deb (or .rpm if that is also included in the upstream repository). Effectively this requires that upstream git master branch has a debian/ directory. - Since there will be a debian/ directory, upstream might as well run full Debian QA on every commit. This will help detect if upstream developes make grave mistakes, like try to run curl/git fetches duringthe build stage, introduce library symbols in a wrong way or embed in the build something that stops from being a reproducible build anymore. Lintian even complains about spelling mistakes. Such QA items are not Debian specific – all code everywhere should be without spelling mistakes, all programs should stay reproducible if they now are so etc. Now some ask, if it reasonable to require all upstream developers to follow Debian QA? No, I don't think so. If the CI runs automatically and the QA is automatic, then developers will be served with in-context errors and warnings at the time they are changing some code. For everybody to know the Debian Policy by heart and so on is naturally unreasonable, but reading a Lintian warning about a spelling error or broken multi-arch is not hard or unreasonable, and when those things are addressed the upstream code base benefits and all distributions benefit. The contrary is in my opinion unreasonable: to expect the Debian maintainer to fix tens of upstream issues at Debian import time that can be anything ranging like fixing a failing test suite or tracking down why the build is no longer reproducible. Yes, the maintainer could file N upstream bugs, but upstreams are less likely to fix them (as they might have switched context and don't want to revisit something they coded several months back) and even if upstreams fix them, the maintainer would need to wait some weeks, then manually cherry-pick and patch the Debian version, and then do extra work following up on all those patches and dropping or refreshing them on next upstream release. Having a debian/ in upstream, having deb building as part of the upstream CI, and keeping the delta of Debian debian/ and upstream debian/ as small as possible makes life much easier for the Debian maintainer, and in general all distros and the whole upstream code base benefits of the extra QA. - Otto
Bug#951018: ITP: ruby-tty-spinner -- Library for showing a spinner icon for terminal tasks that have non-deterministic time frame
Package: wnpp Severity: wishlist Owner: Gabriel Filion * Package name: ruby-tty-spinner Version : 0.9.3 Upstream Author : Piotr Murach * URL : https://ttytoolkit.org/ * License : expat Programming Lang: Ruby Description : Library for showing a spinner icon for terminal tasks that have non-deterministic time frame tty-spinner provides a selection of different text-based animations that can be shown when the user is waiting on a task run in terminal that will end some time that is not known in the future, or for which the completion timestamp can only be estimated. Those tasks will usually be waiting for some I/O, for example a download or a task that was requested from a service that will give an answer whenever the response is ready. This package is currently required for packaging puppet-developement-kit (pdk), but might be needed for other ruby-based scripts expected to run in a terminal. I plan on maintaining this library within the ruby team. I will ask for sponsorship from within the team to ensure that I follow the team's policies properly.
Re: GSoC projects about SUSI.AI
Hi Mo, > "Packages involved" means the packages that you intend to upload to our > archive. The freeness of plain text files (e.g. code) is easy to judge. > When you have doubt whether to upload a binary blob (pretrained model) > to main or contrib, feel free to ask me publically. Thanks, I will keep that in mind. > For example, these looks like typical questionable models: > https://github.com/Kitt-AI/snowboy/tree/master/resources/models Not only that ;-) There is a binary blog, too, so this is anyway a no-go for Debian. > > What are the definitions of DFSG-compliant for models? I guess that is > > written in [1] > > I interpret DFSG-compliant model as the "Free Model" defined in [1]. > I need to update the document when I got enough free time to do so. Yes, but also in the first post of you there was no actual link [1], so that is why I asked what the actual location of [1] is! Best Norbert -- PREINING Norbert http://www.preining.info Accelia Inc. + IFMGA ProGuide + TU Wien + JAIST + TeX Live + Debian Dev GPG: 0x860CDC13 fp: F7D8 A928 26E3 16A1 9FA0 ACF0 6CAC A448 860C DC13
Re: Bug#950760: RFS: libbpf/0.0.6-1 -- eBPF helper library (development files)
On Fri, Feb 7, 2020 at 7:58 PM Sudip Mukherjee wrote: > > On Fri, Feb 7, 2020 at 10:17 AM Sudip Mukherjee > wrote: > > > > On Thu, Feb 6, 2020 at 10:53 PM Christian Barcenas > > wrote: > > > > > > I just noticed that your packaging repo is currently empty. > > > Would you be able to push your current progress to Github > > > so that it's easier to review the source package? > > > > Pushed now. Its without any epoch in the version. I will add the epoch > > and push again tonight after back from $dayjob. > > Also pushed in wip/epoch branch with the epoch in only binary packages > for your review. I have not yet uploaded to mentors. And I have now pushed to mentors the package with epoch only in the binary packages and I hope that is the consensus here. -- Regards Sudip
Re: call for ftpmaster's transparency
Le 09/02/2020 à 18:12, gregor herrmann a écrit : > On Sun, 09 Feb 2020 04:04:25 -0600, Michael Lustfield wrote: > >> I would personally *LOVE* to see ITPs be a requirement for *ALL* new >> packages. > > Fine with me. > >> Making it a requirement and expecting ftp-masters to ignore any upload until >> the ITP has existed for at least X days would be absolutely fantastic. > > Ehm, please, no. > I would find it highly interruptive for my work if I'd have to wait > for X days. +1: don't add another delay for NEW queue! >> It would >> fix some redundant library uploads (see golang/nodejs/etc.) and it would >> provide a mandatory level of review by the wider community. >> Back when I tried to get gitea packaged for main, I had a number of ITPs >> commented/closed mentioning the alternate library name or a reason it can't >> be >> packaged. > > Maybe that's helpful for some teams, in the perl team our tools > (dh-make-perl in particular) check for existing packages and existing > wnpp bugs. Same for JS Team, our npm2deb tool shows if library already exists >> Why do reviews take so long? > > As a side note: Not all reviews take long, there's seems to be quite > some variance in the time they take. > > > Cheers, > gregor, who's usually very happy with the turnaround time of > NEW packages Same when I'm working in Perl Team, but not when I'm packaging Node.js modules :-/ Cheers, Xavier
Re: Y2038 - best way forward in Debian?
On Sun, 2020-02-09 at 11:57 +0100, Florian Weimer wrote: > * Ben Hutchings: > > > If I recall correctly, glibc *will* provide both entry points, so there > > is no ABI break. But the size of time_t (etc.) exposed through libc- > > dev is fixed at glibc build time. > > Is this a Debian-specific decision? I though that was the *upstream* decision, but perhaps that's still not decided after all? Ben. > There has been a proposal upstream not to support 32-bit time_t for > new applications at all, but I don't think we will go in that > direction. -- Ben Hutchings The world is coming to an end. Please log off. signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part
Re: call for ftpmaster's transparency
On Sun, 09 Feb 2020 04:04:25 -0600, Michael Lustfield wrote: > I would personally *LOVE* to see ITPs be a requirement for *ALL* new packages. Fine with me. > Making it a requirement and expecting ftp-masters to ignore any upload until > the ITP has existed for at least X days would be absolutely fantastic. Ehm, please, no. I would find it highly interruptive for my work if I'd have to wait for X days. > It would > fix some redundant library uploads (see golang/nodejs/etc.) and it would > provide a mandatory level of review by the wider community. > Back when I tried to get gitea packaged for main, I had a number of ITPs > commented/closed mentioning the alternate library name or a reason it can't be > packaged. Maybe that's helpful for some teams, in the perl team our tools (dh-make-perl in particular) check for existing packages and existing wnpp bugs. > Why do reviews take so long? As a side note: Not all reviews take long, there's seems to be quite some variance in the time they take. Cheers, gregor, who's usually very happy with the turnaround time of NEW packages -- .''`. https://info.comodo.priv.at -- Debian Developer https://www.debian.org : :' : OpenPGP fingerprint D1E1 316E 93A7 60A8 104D 85FA BB3A 6801 8649 AA06 `. `' Member VIBE!AT & SPI Inc. -- Supporter Free Software Foundation Europe `- NP: Ry Cooder: Poor Man's Shangri-La signature.asc Description: Digital Signature
Bug#950996: ITP: octave-matgeom -- computational geometry for Octave
Package: wnpp Severity: wishlist Owner: Rafael Laboissiere * Package name: octave-matgeom Version : 1.2.2 Upstream Author : David Legland and Juan Pablo Carbajal * URL : https://octave.sourceforge.io/matgeom/ * License : BSD-2-clause and GPL-3+ Programming Lang: Octave Description : Computational geometry for Octave This package contain a geometry toolbox for 2D/3D geometric computing in Octave, a numerical computation software. It contains several hundreds of functions for the creation and manipulation of 2D and 3D shapes such as point sets, lines, polygons, 3D meshes, ellipses, etc. This Octave add-on package is part of the Octave-Forge project. A preliminary version of the Debianized package is available at: https://salsa.debian.org/pkg-octave-team/octave-matgeom
Re: Heads up: persistent journal has been enabled in systemd
Hi, Thanks for your heads up. On Sat, 1 Feb 2020 04:05:55 +0100 Michael Biebl wrote: > with today's upload of systemd 244.1-2 I finally enabled persistent > journal by default [1]. It has been a long requested feature. I read this thread and other info, my thought is Pros) Well, as I read upstream's documentation[1], I prefer persistent journal if they implemented features as they said. Especially journald logging feature seems to be more reliable (tamper-proof) than normal syslog's one. e.g. if someone hacked your system and you found it, then logs are NOT reliable information easily. However, if you've enabled persistent journal, it's hard to falsify it. This change is non-destructive, users can change its default setting to go back to rsyslog as Michael notes. Cons) There are some regression at "reading" logs (e.g. we must specify syslog facilities by number)[2] Users should learn new "How to use journalctl" things. Note) Ubuntu already did this change on upgrades and it is smooth. So, my conclusion is Use "reliable logging system" is good for our users, so I prefer it as the default. If you need more flexibility, then you can install rsyslog or something for your logging system - yes, you have a choice! :) [1] https://docs.google.com/document/pub?id=1IC9yOXj7j6cdLLxWEBAGRL6wl97tFxgjLUEHIX3MSTs [2] https://github.com/systemd/systemd/issues/9716 -- Regards, Hideki Yamane henrich @ debian.org/iijmio-mail.jp
Re: Best practices for Debian developers who are also upstreams?
* Otto Kekäläinen: > Is somebody else already doing something similar like this? We are doing this with glibc in Fedora, which is not Debian, but kind of similar. We try to push all backportable fixes to the upstream release branches (and master) and synthesize new pseudo-release tarballs from those branches. This means that (the equivalent of) .orig.tar.xz reflects upstream contents, but necessarily an actual release tarball. This means that the set of downstream patches is reasonably small, and grows only moderately due to ongoing bug-fixing. In some cases, we want to backport things into Fedora which do not seem appropriate for upstream, and those end up as patch files. The distribution packaging bits do not live in the upstream repository, but we have special (glibc-specific) scripts which allow us to merge in upstream changes (using git cherrypick and git rebase), so this mostly a matter of training people to use these scripts. I think this approach is only possible because we have stable release branches upstream where we can backport the things we are interested in (and other contributors are reasonably conservative), and we are willing to respin the tarballs. It simplifies matters for the uploaders, but we cannot easily bisect individual changes/upstream commits because they do not exist downstream, and the upstream repository lacks the distribution customizations.
Re: Y2038 - best way forward in Debian?
* Ben Hutchings: > If I recall correctly, glibc *will* provide both entry points, so there > is no ABI break. But the size of time_t (etc.) exposed through libc- > dev is fixed at glibc build time. Is this a Debian-specific decision? There has been a proposal upstream not to support 32-bit time_t for new applications at all, but I don't think we will go in that direction.
Re: call for ftpmaster's transparency
Hi Niels, On Sun, Feb 09, 2020 at 11:22:46AM +0100, Niels Thykier wrote: > For the parts involving tooling, are there bugs/salsa issues describing > the issue so a "non-FTP-team"-member can take a stab at fixing them? First of all the major problem we are talking about, that the reviewing process being so slow, is not well defined. Because what this is going to optimize is not the machine code, but the human's working procedure. So it's not easy for people to open a bug and describe the definite problem they have found. For instance, bugs saying "hi dak devs, I found the tool not friendly enough for human efficiency, please fix it" are very likely terrible bug reports. Something new needs to be invented (and eventually incorporated into somewhere like dak). I happen to have a bottom-up idea that is still a work-in-progress[1]. Albeit I believe what I'm doing can greatly facilitate my NEW reviewing process (as a trainee), I still suffer from the lack of time and energy to push the draft forward. I had some further private discussion with Michael and Dmitry. People's opinions on the solution differ. So I speculate that the community will have to come up with some more concrete ideas and experiment them a little bit to settle the whole NEW-SO-SLOW issue. [1] see my old post: "Idea: intermediate license review"
Re: call for ftpmaster's transparency
Quoting Michael Lustfield (2020-02-09 11:04:25) > On Thu, 06 Feb 2020 10:32:42 +1100 > Dmitry Smirnov wrote: > > > IMHO it is disturbing that one of the most essential processes in > > Debian -- acceptance of new and modified packages -- operates almost > > in secrecy. > > This is an understandable perspective, but secrecy probably isn't the > best word. > > > To make matters worse ftp-masters rarely leave their comments in ITP > > issues. As I've recently learned that have profound effect on > > processing of new packages. > > I personally think this sounds like a fantastic (and not very > difficult) idea. Me too. > Where do you propose the bug mail be sent for NEW/binNEW packages > without an ITP? I suggest (for now) to use our issue tracker only for packages with an ITP. > > One of my packages spent a year in the NEW queue at some point > > raising to position number 4. Apparently before release of Buster > > (2019-07-06) member of ftp-masters team left an internal (invisible > > to the public) comment on my package that was not communicated to me > > until 7 months later when my package was rejected based on that > > comment. The comment could have been addressed without delay if it > > was left on the corresponding ITP issue where it belong. > > I suspect when you say, "member of ftp-masters team," what you mean is > "FTP-Masters Trainee." FWIW- Trainees are not technically part of the > team. We get just enough access to be able to provide package reviews. > Those reviews are then either discussed with us or sent back in a > rejection/prod message. > > I agree that it could be valuable to see comments; however, they're > almost always going to be from Trainees. Since we're not technically > part of the team, it's important that we don't speak on behalf of the > team. Publishing Trainee comments would effectively be doing that. I suggest (for now) that ftp trainees CC an ITP (when such ITP exists) when they share their findings with ftp-masters. To help avoid misunderstandings, such messages could begin with something like this: NB! This is no FTP-Masters ruling (just suggestions from a Trainee). Is anything stopping Trainees from voluntarily changing their praxis right now to cc ITPs when available? > > A precious time was lost but more importantly one can see that > > current process requires an extra effort to communicate with > > maintainers -- a something that would not be necessary if > > ftp-masters use the official channel that exist specifically to > > discuss introduction of new packages -- ITP bug reports. [...] > > I would personally *LOVE* to see ITPs be a requirement for *ALL* new > packages. Making it a requirement and expecting ftp-masters to ignore > any upload until the ITP has existed for at least X days would be > absolutely fantastic. It would fix some redundant library uploads (see > golang/nodejs/etc.) and it would provide a mandatory level of review > by the wider community. > > Back when I tried to get gitea packaged for main, I had a number of > ITPs commented/closed mentioning the alternate library name or a > reason it can't be packaged. I think we don't need mandatory ITPs to get the ball rolling on better transparency. I suggest that (for now) we just make transparency yet another argument for voluntarily filing ITPs. - Jonas -- * Jonas Smedegaard - idealist & Internet-arkitekt * Tlf.: +45 40843136 Website: http://dr.jones.dk/ [x] quote me freely [ ] ask before reusing [ ] keep private signature.asc Description: signature
Bug#950988: ITP: libcglm -- Optimized OpenGL Mathematics library for C
Package: wnpp Severity: wishlist Owner: Leon Marz * Package name: libcglm Version : 0.6.2 Upstream Author : Recep Aslantas * URL : https://github.com/recp/cglm * License : MIT Programming Lang: C Description : Optimized OpenGL Mathematics library for C cglm is an optimized 3D math library written in C99 (compatible with C89). It is similar to the original glm library except this is mainly for C. This library is useful, when you're writing an OpenGL/Vulkan program in C and don't want to switch to C++ just to be able to include glm. It uses the same header-only approach like glm but also supports pre-compiled function calls
Re: call for ftpmaster's transparency
Michael Lustfield: > [...] > > I too would love to engage in a civil discussion about ways to improve the > situation. Let's start with this- > > Why do reviews take so long? > - The team is tiny > - Much of the team seems very burned out > - The ones that are active tend to stick to source or "unloved" tasks > - There are some very large and/or messy packages that need review > - There are a lot of redundant tasks and frequently-made mistakes > + A little more automation could help that > - (my opinion) The tools are archaic, cumbersome, and inefficient > + Fixing this would be a very (non-technically) difficult task > + An idea I have would help to bring transparency to the process... > ^ it's missing an interest requirement :( > For the parts involving tooling, are there bugs/salsa issues describing the issue so a "non-FTP-team"-member can take a stab at fixing them? ~Niels
Re: call for ftpmaster's transparency
On Thu, 06 Feb 2020 10:32:42 +1100 Dmitry Smirnov wrote: > IMHO it is disturbing that one of the most essential processes in Debian > -- acceptance of new and modified packages -- operates almost in secrecy. This is an understandable perspective, but secrecy probably isn't the best word. > To make matters worse ftp-masters rarely leave their comments in ITP > issues. As I've recently learned that have profound effect on processing of > new packages. I personally think this sounds like a fantastic (and not very difficult) idea. Where do you propose the bug mail be sent for NEW/binNEW packages without an ITP? > One of my packages spent a year in the NEW queue at some point raising to > position number 4. Apparently before release of Buster (2019-07-06) member > of ftp-masters team left an internal (invisible to the public) comment on > my package that was not communicated to me until 7 months later when my > package was rejected based on that comment. The comment could have been > addressed without delay if it was left on the corresponding ITP issue where > it belong. I suspect when you say, "member of ftp-masters team," what you mean is "FTP-Masters Trainee." FWIW- Trainees are not technically part of the team. We get just enough access to be able to provide package reviews. Those reviews are then either discussed with us or sent back in a rejection/prod message. I agree that it could be valuable to see comments; however, they're almost always going to be from Trainees. Since we're not technically part of the team, it's important that we don't speak on behalf of the team. Publishing Trainee comments would effectively be doing that. > A precious time was lost but more importantly one can see that current > process requires an extra effort to communicate with maintainers -- a > something that would not be necessary if ftp-masters use the official > channel that exist specifically to discuss introduction of new packages -- > ITP bug reports. > [...] I would personally *LOVE* to see ITPs be a requirement for *ALL* new packages. Making it a requirement and expecting ftp-masters to ignore any upload until the ITP has existed for at least X days would be absolutely fantastic. It would fix some redundant library uploads (see golang/nodejs/etc.) and it would provide a mandatory level of review by the wider community. Back when I tried to get gitea packaged for main, I had a number of ITPs commented/closed mentioning the alternate library name or a reason it can't be packaged. > I'd like Debian project leader to engage in the matter of improving > transparency of ftp-masters team operations and procedures. This feels a lot like starting a GR and not allowing appropriate discussion. It's heavy-handed, isn't going to get anywhere, and is going to hurt feelings. > As very minimum I recommend to change current ftp-master procedures to use > ITP bugs instead of internal comments whenever possible, for the sake of > transparency and to optimise communication. I replied to this idea above. > I want to encourage a public discussion regarding opening of the ftp-master > mail list to the public. Currently reasons for unjustified secrecy of ftp- > master processes is not explained... It's often said that emotions don't play well with productive discussions. Adding phrases such as "where it belong", using "secrecy" over "privacy", calling it "unjustified", and immediately jumping to demands of the DPL are accusatory and inflammatory, and will likely just get you ignored or start an unproductive flame war. I too would love to engage in a civil discussion about ways to improve the situation. Let's start with this- Why do reviews take so long? - The team is tiny - Much of the team seems very burned out - The ones that are active tend to stick to source or "unloved" tasks - There are some very large and/or messy packages that need review - There are a lot of redundant tasks and frequently-made mistakes + A little more automation could help that - (my opinion) The tools are archaic, cumbersome, and inefficient + Fixing this would be a very (non-technically) difficult task + An idea I have would help to bring transparency to the process... ^ it's missing an interest requirement :( -- Michael Lustfield pgpsLUD8ax93J.pgp Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Re: Best practices for Debian developers who are also upstreams?
On Sat, Feb 08, 2020 at 10:07:48PM +0200, Otto Kekäläinen wrote: > Hello! > > I've ended up in being both the maintainer in Debian and an upstream > developer for a couple of packages and I have been fantasizing about > how to optimize my workflow so that I primarily fix all bugs and do QA > directly on the upstream development version (=upstream git master) > and then have only a very small overhead work then importing and > uploading new upstream releases in Debian. So, I have four packages that are in various ways similar to this: - nbd, which I started maintaining in Debian before becoming upstream for it; - SReview, which I started maintaining upstream before uploading it to Debian; - fdpowermon, which I released first by uploading it to Debian; - ola, which I maintain for Debian and do not really maintain upstream, but which upstream did give me commit rights to their repository for. I have separate upstream and debian branches for nbd; however, if someone reports a bug, I will fix it upstream first, and then (possibly, if applicable and it's too soon to release an upstream version) cherry-pick the patch to the debian branch. There is no debian/ directory in the upstream branch. Updating to a new upstream release for Debian involves a simple "git merge" of the upstream branch, which will always work if I never violated that policy. Needless to say, nbd is not a native package. I do not maintain separate branches for SReview or fdpowermon. The difference between the two, however, is that SReview is uploaded to CPAN as well as Debian. The CPAN upload does not contain the debian/ directory, and I do use the tarball of the CPAN upload as the orig.tar.gz for the Debian upload. However, they're both built from the same git checkout. Fdpowermon, on the other hand, I do not upload it to CPAN (it's too simple for that), and is instead uploaded as a native package to Debian. For ola, upstream at one point committed a squash commit of all the Debian patches I had committed to my debian branch at that point in time. The next time I tried to merge their newest release by way of the git tag, things went a bit haywire. I do not recommend this approach. -- To the thief who stole my anti-depressants: I hope you're happy -- seen somewhere on the Internet on a photo of a billboard
