Re: [1/2] MBF: Defunct alioth addresses in the Maintainer: field (serious)

2018-05-21 Thread Christoph Biedl 
Emilio Pozuelo Monfort wrote...

> On 05/05/18 17:34, Christoph Biedl wrote:
> > A lot of now defunct alioth addresses are used in the Maintainer:
> > field. This makes the packages rc-buggy for an invalid address.
> 
> Before doing the MBF, can you send an email with all the people in Uploaders 
> in
> Bcc? It may trigger some package updates or some late list migrations. I would
> prefer to avoid getting 700 RC bugs, but after that I guess there's no option
> but to file them.

Nobody will get all the 700 mails - but the number 55 is still above a
threshold where this is more annoying than encouraging. So I'll send out
a warning to those folks where the message count is above twelve. That
would be some 13 people.

Christoph



signature.asc
Description: PGP signature

Re: [1/2] MBF: Defunct alioth addresses in the Maintainer: field (serious)

2018-05-21 Thread Christoph Biedl 
Dominic Hargreaves wrote...

> Thanks for doing this detailed work - which is very timely and important
> to ensure that communication paths within Debian remain open.

Yeah, unfortunately other things have been blocking my spare spare time
so this took *much* longer than wished. But here we go ...

> > The first option is probably suitable only if the address was used just
> > in a small number of packages since this requires an upload for each of
> > them. To our knowledge, the usage count of [% alioth_list %] is [% count %].
> 
> I think I would leave it to package maintainers to decide whether they
> think uploads of all packages are practical or not.

My intention was to give the maintainers an idea whether "new upload" is
feasible. In my opinion, I'd go this way and avoid all other hazzle if
the number is below ten - but that decision is indeed to them.

> Also it might be be worth referring to the other options for team
> addresses, even if they are imperfect:
> 
> https://wiki.debian.org/Salsa/AliothMigration#Import_mailing_list

Thanks for this and all other suggestions, now added.

> > Affected packages below, as created by dd-list. The total count is 711
> 
> Since the number of bugs is pretty large, I think it would be best to
> file these in batches.

Probably the right thing. I'll start with the "uploaders" batch, just
some twelve packages left, in an hour or so. The "maintainer" package
count is down to 544.

Christoph


signature.asc
Description: PGP signature

Re: [1/2] MBF: Defunct alioth addresses in the Maintainer: field (serious)

2018-05-14 Thread Emilio Pozuelo Monfort 
On 05/05/18 17:34, Christoph Biedl wrote:
> A lot of now defunct alioth addresses are used in the Maintainer:
> field. This makes the packages rc-buggy for an invalid address.

Before doing the MBF, can you send an email with all the people in Uploaders in
Bcc? It may trigger some package updates or some late list migrations. I would
prefer to avoid getting 700 RC bugs, but after that I guess there's no option
but to file them.

Cheers,
Emilio

Re: [1/2] MBF: Defunct alioth addresses in the Maintainer: field (serious)

2018-05-10 Thread Raphael Hertzog 
Hi,

On Wed, 09 May 2018, Mathieu Parent (Debian) wrote:
> I will probably request the (re-)creation of those two mailing lists
> unless the team+s...@tracker.debian.org is ready to use. Raphael, what
> is the status of this? Where is the doc?

I just implemented it. There is no doc yet.

But basically sending to team+...@tracker.debian.org now mails all team
members who have the "contact" keyword enabled. It discards automatic
emails (BTS, dak, etc.) that we are already receiving through the usual
channel (dispa...@tracker.debian.org).

https://salsa.debian.org/qa/distro-tracker/commit/a707768aec9af00095548da39d7a4050d3ae5627

Cheers,
-- 
Raphaël Hertzog ◈ Debian Developer

Support Debian LTS: https://www.freexian.com/services/debian-lts.html
Learn to master Debian: https://debian-handbook.info/get/

Re: [1/2] MBF: Defunct alioth addresses in the Maintainer: field (serious)

2018-05-09 Thread Mathieu Parent (Debian) 
2018-05-05 17:34 GMT+02:00 Christoph Biedl :
> A lot of now defunct alioth addresses are used in the Maintainer:
> field. This makes the packages rc-buggy for an invalid address.

Hi,

> To create awareness about that issue, also to provide suggestions on
> how to resolve this I intend to do a MBF using the following message:

> Debian PHP PECL Maintainers 
>...
> Horde Maintainers 
>...

I will probably request the (re-)creation of those two mailing lists
unless the team+s...@tracker.debian.org is ready to use. Raphael, what
is the status of this? Where is the doc?

Regards

-- 
Mathieu Parent

Re: [1/2] MBF: Defunct alioth addresses in the Maintainer: field (serious)

2018-05-08 Thread Holger Levsen 
On Tue, May 08, 2018 at 02:31:05PM +0100, Dominic Hargreaves wrote:
> > > Since the number of bugs is pretty large, I think it would be best to
> > > file these in batches.
> > why? I cannot see the benefit of this, but I can see the downsides. IME
> > it's never^wonly very rarely useful to delay reporting bugs. (And I
> > can't see how this is useful here.)
> Mainly in case any inaccuracies or refinements to the process are
> noticed by the first set of people who receive them. But it's only a
> suggestion/personal preference; I am happy with however Christoph wants
> to proceed.

ah, yes, a "test run" of just filing 50 bugs or so, then waiting a day
and then filing the rest is quite probably useful. When I read "file these in
batches" I understood 8 batches of 100 bugs (or something like that)
which didnt seem useful to me...

Thanks!


-- 
cheers,
Holger


signature.asc
Description: PGP signature

Re: [1/2] MBF: Defunct alioth addresses in the Maintainer: field (serious)

2018-05-08 Thread Dominic Hargreaves 
On Mon, May 07, 2018 at 08:47:52AM +, Holger Levsen wrote:
> Hi,
> 
> On Sun, May 06, 2018 at 04:08:06PM +0100, Dominic Hargreaves wrote:
> > Thanks for doing this detailed work - which is very timely and important
> > to ensure that communication paths within Debian remain open.
> 
> indeed! Christoph, many thanks for your work on this!
> 
> > > Affected packages below, as created by dd-list. The total count is 711
> > Since the number of bugs is pretty large, I think it would be best to
> > file these in batches.
>  
> why? I cannot see the benefit of this, but I can see the downsides. IME
> it's never^wonly very rarely useful to delay reporting bugs. (And I
> can't see how this is useful here.)

Mainly in case any inaccuracies or refinements to the process are
noticed by the first set of people who receive them. But it's only a
suggestion/personal preference; I am happy with however Christoph wants
to proceed.

Dominic.

Re: [1/2] MBF: Defunct alioth addresses in the Maintainer: field (serious)

2018-05-07 Thread Holger Levsen 
Hi,

On Sun, May 06, 2018 at 04:08:06PM +0100, Dominic Hargreaves wrote:
> Thanks for doing this detailed work - which is very timely and important
> to ensure that communication paths within Debian remain open.

indeed! Christoph, many thanks for your work on this!

> > Affected packages below, as created by dd-list. The total count is 711
> Since the number of bugs is pretty large, I think it would be best to
> file these in batches.
 
why? I cannot see the benefit of this, but I can see the downsides. IME
it's never^wonly very rarely useful to delay reporting bugs. (And I
can't see how this is useful here.)


-- 
cheers,
Holger


signature.asc
Description: PGP signature

Re: [1/2] MBF: Defunct alioth addresses in the Maintainer: field (serious)

2018-05-06 Thread Dominic Hargreaves 
On Sat, May 05, 2018 at 05:34:10PM +0200, Christoph Biedl wrote:
> A lot of now defunct alioth addresses are used in the Maintainer:
> field. This makes the packages rc-buggy for an invalid address.
> 
> To create awareness about that issue, also to provide suggestions on
> how to resolve this I intend to do a MBF using the following message:

Thanks for doing this detailed work - which is very timely and important
to ensure that communication paths within Debian remain open.

> as you've probably heard, Debian's alioth services are shutting down.
> This affects your package [% package %] since the address [%
> alioth_list %] used in the Maintainer: field was not transferred to the
> alioth-lists service that provides a continuation for the lists in the
> @lists.alioth.debian.org domain.
> 
> Addresses that were not migrated have been disabled a few days ago. As

A bit more than a few days ago now - the migration was on 14th April

> a result your package is now in violation of a "must" in the Debian
> policy (3.3, working email address), making it unfit for release.
> 
> Please fix this before long. Among other reasons, keep in mind bug
> reports and important notifications about your package might not reach
> you.
> 
> Your options:
> 
> * Upload another version with a new maintainer address of your choice,
> 
> or
> 
> * Migrate the list the new system. This is still possible,
   ^ to   ^:

[these changes apply to the other mail too]

>   please appoint a Debian developer as a list owner first, then
>   contact the alioth lists migration team 
>   and provide all the necessary information.
> 
>   More information about the new service can be found here:
>   
> 
> The first option is probably suitable only if the address was used just
> in a small number of packages since this requires an upload for each of
> them. To our knowledge, the usage count of [% alioth_list %] is [% count %].

I think I would leave it to package maintainers to decide whether they
think uploads of all packages are practical or not.

Also it might be be worth referring to the other options for team
addresses, even if they are imperfect:

https://wiki.debian.org/Salsa/AliothMigration#Import_mailing_list

> The second option is available for a limited time only, by end of
> May 2018 the most. So if you're interested in going this way, start the
> process as soon as possible.
> 
> Note, as mails to the maintainer address will not get through, this
> bugreport is Cc'ed to all uploaders of the package.
> 
> Regards,
> 
> Christoph and some alioth-lists maintainers
> --
> 
> Affected packages below, as created by dd-list. The total count is 711

Since the number of bugs is pretty large, I think it would be best to
file these in batches.

> Cheers,
> 
>Christoph
> 
> 
> The list was generated using
> 
> * Debian sid sources, Release file Date: Sat, 05 May 2018 08:30:59 UTC
> 
> * List of defunct alioth lists
>   
> 
>   commit 86fefce911c172319fbf61f772a63e6cd2720c6d
>   Author: Dominic Hargreaves 
>   Date:   Wed Apr 25 20:55:15 2018 +0100

Re: [1/2] MBF: Defunct alioth addresses in the Maintainer: field (serious)

2018-05-05 Thread gregor herrmann 
On Sat, 05 May 2018 17:34:10 +0200, Christoph Biedl wrote:

> A lot of now defunct alioth addresses are used in the Maintainer:
> field. This makes the packages rc-buggy for an invalid address.
> 
> To create awareness about that issue, also to provide suggestions on
> how to resolve this I intend to do a MBF using the following message:

Thanks for your work on this issue!
Just one minor thought:
 
> --
> To: sub...@bugs.debian.org
> Cc: [% uploaders_list %]
> Subject: [% package %]: Invalid maintainer address [% alioth_list %]
> 
> Package: src:[% package %]
> Version: [% version %]
> Severity: serious
> User: ad...@alioth-lists.debian.net
> Usertag: alioth-lists-maintainer

I think it might make sense to replace the Cc: in the header with an
X-Debbugs-Cc in the pseudo-header so that the Uploaders get the mail
from the BTS with the bug number already set.
 

Cheers,
gregor

-- 
 .''`.  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: James Taylor: You've Got A Friend


signature.asc
Description: Digital Signature

[1/2] MBF: Defunct alioth addresses in the Maintainer: field (serious)

2018-05-05 Thread Christoph Biedl 
A lot of now defunct alioth addresses are used in the Maintainer:
field. This makes the packages rc-buggy for an invalid address.

To create awareness about that issue, also to provide suggestions on
how to resolve this I intend to do a MBF using the following message:

--
To: sub...@bugs.debian.org
Cc: [% uploaders_list %]
Subject: [% package %]: Invalid maintainer address [% alioth_list %]

Package: src:[% package %]
Version: [% version %]
Severity: serious
User: ad...@alioth-lists.debian.net
Usertag: alioth-lists-maintainer

Dear uploader of [% package %],

as you've probably heard, Debian's alioth services are shutting down.
This affects your package [% package %] since the address [%
alioth_list %] used in the Maintainer: field was not transferred to the
alioth-lists service that provides a continuation for the lists in the
@lists.alioth.debian.org domain.

Addresses that were not migrated have been disabled a few days ago. As
a result your package is now in violation of a "must" in the Debian
policy (3.3, working email address), making it unfit for release.

Please fix this before long. Among other reasons, keep in mind bug
reports and important notifications about your package might not reach
you.

Your options:

* Upload another version with a new maintainer address of your choice,

or

* Migrate the list the new system. This is still possible,
  please appoint a Debian developer as a list owner first, then
  contact the alioth lists migration team 
  and provide all the necessary information.

  More information about the new service can be found here:
  

The first option is probably suitable only if the address was used just
in a small number of packages since this requires an upload for each of
them. To our knowledge, the usage count of [% alioth_list %] is [% count %].

The second option is available for a limited time only, by end of
May 2018 the most. So if you're interested in going this way, start the
process as soon as possible.

Note, as mails to the maintainer address will not get through, this
bugreport is Cc'ed to all uploaders of the package.

Regards,

Christoph and some alioth-lists maintainers
--

Affected packages below, as created by dd-list. The total count is 711

Cheers,

   Christoph


The list was generated using

* Debian sid sources, Release file Date: Sat, 05 May 2018 08:30:59 UTC

* List of defunct alioth lists
  

  commit 86fefce911c172319fbf61f772a63e6cd2720c6d
  Author: Dominic Hargreaves 
  Date:   Wed Apr 25 20:55:15 2018 +0100


Note, "golang-github-yosssi-ace" is a false positive, see #897996


"Natural Language Processing, Japanese" 

   chasen
   kakasi

A Mennucc1 
   freevo (U)
   kaa-base (U)
   kaa-imlib2 (U)
   kaa-metadata (U)

Adam Borowski 
   openrc (U)

Adrian Yanes 
   amule (U)

Alan Baghumian 
   aspell-fa (U)
   myspell-fa (U)

Albert Huang 
   pybluez (U)

Alec Leamas 
   lirc (U)
   lirc-compat-remotes (U)

Alessio Treglia 
   libnss-securepass (U)
   mod-authz-securepass (U)
   securepass-tools (U)
   transmageddon (U)

Alexander Lazarević 
   gnu-smalltalk (U)

Alexander Sack 
   gnash (U)

Alexander Wirt 
   file-rc (U)

Amaya Rodrigo Sastre 
   libirman (U)

Andreas Rütten 
   logster (U)

Andreas Tille 
   debian-junior (U)
   ezgo (U)
   mc (U)

Andrew Lee (李健秋) 
   ezgo (U)
   libchewing (U)
   obs-build (U)
   osc-plugins-dput (U)
   scim-chewing (U)

Andrew Pollock 
   isc-dhcp (U)
   protobuf (U)

Andrew Starr-Bochicchio 
   bzr-explorer (U)

Andrew Starr-Bochicchio 
   bzr (U)
   bzr-builddeb (U)
   bzr-git (U)
   bzr-loom (U)
   bzr-pipeline (U)
   bzr-xmloutput (U)
   bzrtools (U)
   loggerhead (U)
   python-certbot-dns-cloudflare (U)
   python-certbot-dns-digitalocean (U)
   python-certbot-dns-dnsimple (U)
   python-certbot-dns-google (U)
   python-certbot-dns-rfc2136 (U)
   python-certbot-dns-route53 (U)
   qbzr (U)

Ankur khurana 
   sugar-irc-activity (U)
   sugar-jigsawpuzzle-activity (U)

Anthony Fok 
   golang-github-yosssi-ace (U)
   ibus-cangjie (U)
   iptux (U)
   lunar (U)
   scim-pinyin (U)
   zh-autoconvert (U)
   zhcon (U)

Anthony Prades 
   cyrus-imapd (U)

Anthony Wong 
   ibus-cangjie (U)
   libcangjie (U)
   pycangjie (U)